- (1.) The Municipal Corporation of Delhi has filed this special leave petition. The respondent who was awarded a contract by the petitioner, raised a claim against the petitioner. Clause 25 of the General Conditions of Contract, provided for Arbitration. The respondent filed an application before the Delhi High Court under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("Act" for short) on 30.11.2006 for appointment of an arbitrator. Though the Municipal Corporation entered appearance in the said petition, but inspite of grant of several opportunities did not file its reply. When the matter was taken up for consideration on 18.7.2007 the counsel for M.C.D. was not present. In the circumstances, the High Court after recording the fact that no reply was filed and the counsel was not present, proceeded to consider the application and appointed Shri S.P. Rai, a Panel Arbitrator of M.C.D. as sole arbitrator to decide the dispute. The said order is challenged by filing this special leave petition.
(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Clause 25 prescribed a special procedure for appointment of arbitrator and such procedure was not followed and, therefore, the appointment of Arbitrator was not valid. But, we find no explanation for M.C.D. not filing objections and not appearing when the case was called. We do not think that the prejudice on account of appointment of arbitrator is such as to condone the omission on the part of the petitioner in failing to file counter and failing to appear when the case was called.
(3.) In view of the above, while condoning the delay in filing the present petition, we reject this petition.;