Lokeshwar Prasad, J. - (1.) The petitioner, named above, in his capacity as the sole proprietor of M/s. Bharat Engineers & Consultants, has filed the present petition under Section II of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), averring that the respondents had invited tenders for construction of a Pucca School Building at M.C. Primary School, Sheikh Sarai, Phase-11, New Delhi. It is stated that the petitioner tendered for the construction of the said building and his tender was accepted by the respondents vide letter dated 8th May, 1995. It is further stated that an Agreement for the construction of the above said school building was entered into between the parties which contained an arbitration clause (Clause No. 25) providing for an Arbitration in the event of disputes arising between the parties. It is stated that disputes as detailed in para 4 of the petition, have arisen between the parties and the petitioner vide letter dated 25th January, 1997 invoked the arbitration clause and requested respondent No. 2 to appoint an Arbitrator in terms of the arbitration clause to adjudicate upon the disputes. It is alleged that despite receipt of the above mentioned communication the respondents have failed to appoint an Arbitrator and issued a notice in an illegal manner terminating the contract. It has been prayed that an Arbitrator be appointed in terms of the arbitration clause to adjudicate upon the disputes, referred to in para 4 of the petition.
(2.) Notice of the petition was issued to the respondents who have filed a reply stating therein that the petition, filed by the petitioner, virtually has become infructuous as the respondents have already appointed Shri K.S. Sandhu, Chief Engineer (North) as the Sole Arbitrator in terms of Clause 25 of die Agreement dated 23rd August, 1995. The respondents alongwith the reply have annexed a copy of Notification dated the 11th July, 1997 (Annexure R-1) wherein the appointment of said Shri K.S. Sandhu, Chief Engineer (North) as the Sole Arbitrator has been notified by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi. It is stated in the reply, filed on behalf of the respondents, that the present petition, filed by the petitioner, is devoid of substance and the same deserves to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
(3.) The petitioner has filed a rejoinder to the reply filed on behalf of the respondents. In the rejoinder, filed on behalf of the petitioner, the fact regarding the appointment of an Arbitrator on 11th July, 1997 has been admitted but it is contended that since no Arbitrator was appointed in response to petitioner's letter dated 25th January, 1997, the respondents have abdicated their right to appoint an Arbitrator and that the appointment made by the respondent, is, therefore, not valid. In the rejoinder, filed on behalf of the petitioner, other pleas taken by the respondents, have been controverted and the contents of the petition have been reiterated.;