What was the central question in this case?

Whether a party can appoint a substitute arbitrator after 30 days under Section 11(6) when the earlier nominee dies, and how the notice requirement applies.

Did the Delhi High Court allow a late substitute appointment?

Yes. The Court noted the contractual requirement of notice was not met by the petitioner and also considered COVID-19 restrictions for the delay.

Is notice necessary before moving the court under Section 11(6)?

If the arbitration clause requires a notice to trigger appointment, the applicant must issue it; without notice, the other side’s right to appoint subsists.

What practical lesson should students remember?

Follow the agreement: send the required notice and wait the stipulated time. Only then can you seek the court’s help under Section 11(6).

Was the petition under Section 11(6) allowed?

No. The petition was dismissed because the petitioner had not issued the contractually required notice and the respondent appointed a substitute arbitrator.

DSC Ventures (P) Ltd. v. Ministry of Road Transport and Highways

DSC Ventures (P) Ltd. v. Ministry of Road Transport & Highways

Section 11(6) and the 30-day window: when can a party still appoint a substitute arbitrator? What if no notice was sent? What about COVID-19 delay?

High Court of Delhi 2020 2020 SCC OnLine Del 669 Bench: Delhi HC Arbitration | Section 11(6) ~6 min read

Author: Gulzar Hashmi • India • Published: 02 Nov 2025

Horizontal

CASE_TITLE

DSC Ventures (P) Ltd. v. Ministry of Road Transport & Highways, 2020 SCC OnLine Del 669

SLUG

dsc-ventures-pvt-ltd-v-ministry-of-road-transport-and-highways

PRIMARY_KEYWORDS

Section 11(6) Arbitration 30-Day Appointment Substitute Arbitrator

SECONDARY_KEYWORDS

Notice Requirement COVID-19 Delay Delhi High Court

Quick Summary

The Delhi High Court dismissed a Section 11(6) petition. The contract required a notice before seeking court appointment. The petitioner had not issued that notice. Meanwhile, the respondent appointed a substitute arbitrator (after its nominee died), even though this was beyond 30 days. Given the clause and the COVID-19 situation, the Court did not interfere.

Lesson: follow the agreement’s process. If notice is required, send it first. Courts will step in only after that path is tried and fails.

Issues

Can a party appoint a substitute arbitrator beyond 30 days under Section 11(6)?
Does a notice under the arbitration clause have to be sent before moving the Court?

Rules

Section 11(6): Court may act if a party fails to act as required by the procedure agreed, or the parties fail to agree.
Clause-first principle: If the clause needs a notice to trigger appointment/substitution, it must be served before seeking Court aid.
Exceptional delay: Pandemic-related restrictions can explain some delay in making appointments.

Facts (Timeline)

Timeline Image

Concession Agreement (2003)

NH-6 widening: clause 19.2(a) — three-member tribunal if settlement fails.

Tribunal Constituted (2007)

Both sides nominated arbitrators after talks failed.

Vacancy (Feb 2020)

Respondent’s arbitrator, Mr. S. C. Sharma, passed away before award.

Section 11(6) Petition

Petitioner asked Court to appoint a substitute, citing expiry of 30 days.

Substitution (June 8, 2020)

Respondent appointed Mr. Manoj Kumar as substitute arbitrator during pendency.

Timeline for DSC Ventures v. MoRTH: agreement, tribunal, vacancy, petition, substitution

Arguments

Petitioner

30 days to appoint a substitute lapsed; Court must appoint under Section 11(6).
Read Section 15(2) with Section 11(4): failure triggers Court’s power.
Respondent’s late act should not be recognized.

Respondent

Clause required a notice; petitioner sent none, so right to appoint remained.
Substitute was appointed; delay explained by COVID-19 restrictions.
No cause to bypass the agreed procedure.

Judgment (Held)

Judgment Image

Held: Petition dismissed. The arbitration clause demanded a notice for appointment; none was given. The respondent’s substitute appointment, though beyond 30 days, was not ignored, especially in light of COVID-19 related constraints.

Courts will prefer the contractual procedure first; Section 11(6) is a fallback when that process fails.

Ratio Decidendi

If the agreement requires a notice for appointment/substitution, failure to serve it means the appointing party’s right survives. A late substitution may still be honored when justified; courts step in under Section 11(6) only after the agreed route is exhausted.

Why It Matters

Contract first: Courts insist on following the clause (notice/steps) before judicial appointment.
Real-world flexibility: Extraordinary events (like COVID-19) can justify some delay.
Process integrity: Prevents premature court intervention and respects party autonomy.

Key Takeaways

Send the notice if the clause demands it.
Section 11(6) is a backup, not the first step.
Substitute appointment can be valid even after 30 days.

Courts consider practical hurdles (e.g., COVID-19).
Respect for party autonomy and procedure.
Premature petitions risk dismissal.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “CLAUSE → CLOCK → COURT”

CLAUSE: Check and follow the agreement (send notice!).
CLOCK: Track the 30-day window for substitution.
COURT: Move Section 11(6) only if the process fails.

IRAC Outline

Issue	Can a party appoint a substitute arbitrator after 30 days under Section 11(6) when the clause needs prior notice?
Rule	Section 11(6) applies if a party fails per agreed procedure. Notice-based clauses must be followed first.
Application	No notice was given by the petitioner; respondent later appointed a substitute, with delay explained by COVID-19 constraints.
Conclusion	Petition dismissed; clause compliance prevails and late substitution was not disregarded.

Glossary

Section 11(6): Court’s power to step in when the agreed appointment procedure fails.
Substitute Arbitrator: An arbitrator appointed to fill a vacancy (e.g., death, resignation) in a tribunal.
Notice Requirement: A contractual step that triggers the other party’s obligation or right to appoint.