- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) We have heard learned senior Counsel for the appellant and learned senior Counsel for respondent No. 1 finally in this appeal with their consent. Respondent No. 2 is a proforma respondent.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the parties have agreed that they have no objection to abide by the order of the High Court re-placing the earlier arbitrator in the arbitration proceedings. They have also agreed that instead of two arbitrators and one umpire appointed by the High Court, it would be better if the senior most amongst all the three Judges is permitted to continue as the sole arbitrator in view of the costs involved. They have also stated that they have nothing to say against the arbitrators. In our view, this request appears to be quite reasonable. Therefore, only on this short ground and with the consent of parties, we deem it fit to direct that instead of two arbitrators and one umpire appointed by the High Court, there will be sole arbitration of Mrs. Justice Manjula Bose who will now proceed as such in accordance with law. As the arbitration dispute between the parties is simmering since long, we request the sole arbitrator to make it convenient to dispose of the same as early as possible and preferably within a period of six months from the date of her entering upon the reference pursuant to the present order and proceeding further with the arbitration from the earlier stage where it has been left. The remuneration of the sole arbitrator and the deposit of costs will abide by the decision of the sole arbitrator. She may fix the same after hearing the parties. The time and place of arbitration may also be decided upon by the arbitrator accordingly.;