High Court Can’t Appoint Arbitrator in International Disputes: Madhya Pradesh HC Draws a Hard Jurisdictional Line

The Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of M/S Ssangyong Engineering and Construction Company Ltd. v. M/s S.B. Engineering Associates has held that a High Court has no jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator in an international commercial arbitration. A division bench ruled that under Section 11(9) and (12) of the Arbitration Act, 1996, only the Chief Justice of India or his designate can make such an appointment.

The dispute arose between Korean company Ssangyong Engineering and Indian firm S.B. Engineering Associates. SBE had secured an arbitrator’s appointment from the High Court in 2009 without any jurisdictional objection. Ssangyong later challenged it, arguing that because one party is a foreign entity, the arbitration was an “international commercial arbitration” under Section 2(1)(f).

Allowing the appeal, the court set aside the appointment as void ab initio. It stressed that the statutory scheme is mandatory and non-derogable. Neither consent nor a failure to object earlier amounts to waiver under Section 4; an inherent lack of jurisdiction renders the arbitrator coram non judice and the award a nullity. The entire award was quashed.

The ruling reinforces that in cross-border disputes, getting the appointing forum right is not optional a mistake taints the entire arbitral process, no matter how long the parties proceed without complaint. The decision strengthens procedural certainty and makes clear that international arbitration has its own channel of authority. For businesses, lawyers, and arbitral institutions, the message is simple: jurisdictional precision is not optional in Section 11 matters.

Authored By: Akshata Patole

HVPS College of Law (Affiliated to University of Mumbai)