“Even if the Arbitration Agreement was to specifically provide for any particular qualification(s) of an Arbitrator the same would not denude the power of the Court acting under Section 11(6), in an appropriate case to depart there from. In Singh Builders Syndicate, (2009) 4 SCC 523, pendency of Arbitration proceedings for over a decade was found by this Court to be a mockery of the process. In the present case, admittedly the award in respect of disputes and differences arising out of the contract No. CAO/CON/722 is yet to be passed. Though the Appellant-Railway has in its pleadings made a feeble attempt to contend that the process of Arbitration arising out of the said contract has been finalized, no material, whatsoever, has been laid before the Court in support thereof. The Arbitration proceedings to resolve the disputes and differences arising out of Contract No. CAO/CON/738 has not even commenced. A period of nearly two decades has elapsed since the contractor had raised his claims for alleged wrongful termination of the two contracts. The situation is distressing and to say the least disturbing. The power of the Court under the Act has to be exercised to effectuate the remedy provided thereunder and to facilitate the mechanism contemplated therein. In a situation where the procedure and process under the Act has been rendered futile, the power of the Court to depart from the agreed terms of appointment of Arbitrators must be acknowledged in the light of the several decisions noticed.”
– Justice Ranjan Gogoi, North Eastern Railway v. Tripple Engineering Works, (2014) 9 SCC 288.