- (1.) We have heard Mr. Jagdeep Kishore, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Chetan Sharma, learned senior counsel for the respondents. Leave granted.
(2.) It is not necessary to refer to the facts of the case. Suffice it to say that the arbitration clause in the agreement between the parties provides that all disputes and differences between them shall be referred by any aggrieved party to the contract to the sole arbitration of ED (NR) of the respondent No. 1--Indian Oil Corporation (for short, 'Corporation'). Arbitration clause further provides that, if such ED (NR) is unable or unwilling to act as the sole arbitrator, the matter shall be referred to the sole arbitration of some other person designated by such ED (NR) in his place who is willing to act as sole arbitrator. The arbitration clause also provides that no person other than ED (NR) or the person designated by the ED (NR) should act as arbitrator.
(3.) It is admitted case that when the disputes arose between the parties, the present appellant--Newton Engineering and Chemicals Limited (for short 'Contractor') wrote to the Corporation for appointment of ED (NR) as sole arbitrator as per the arbitration clause. The Corporation, vide communication dated 28 April, 2004, informed the Contractor that due to internal reorganisation in the Corporation, the office of ED (NR) has ceased to exist and since the intention of the parties was to get their disputes settled through arbitration, the Corporation offered to the Contractor the substitution of the named arbitrator, i.e., ED (NR), with Director (Marketing) in the existing arbitration clause. The Corporation further informed the Contractor that, if it agrees to the same, it may send written confirmation giving its consent to the substitution of the named arbitrator. The said communication further stated that, on receiving the confirmation, the case for appointment of arbitrator would be put up before the new agreed arbitrator between the parties, i.e., Director (Marketing).;