- (1.) Heard Shri O.P. Lohia learned counsel for the petitioners. No one has put in any appearance on behalf of the respondents despite service of notice upon them was deemed to be sufficient by an earlier order of the Court.
(2.) Petitioner No. 1 is an unregistered firm and Petitioner No. 2 claims to be its proprietor. Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the appointment of an arbitrator.
(3.) Petitioners claim that the firm was appointed as a super stockiest of the respondents but respondents started marketing their products through another concern of Lucknow which has resulted in heavy losses to the petitioners. The claim for settlement of losses so suffered by the petitioners is referable to arbitrator. I have perused the pleadings of the petitioners. The petitioners have not mentioned the date on which the firm was appointed as the super stockiest. However, from Annexure-2 to the writ petition which is a letter dated 6.11.2007 issued by the Authorised Signatory of the respondents, it appears that the petitioner firm was empanelled as the new super stockiest for the Eastern U.P. It is, however, not clear from the pleadings as to how long the said empanelment / appointment of the petitioner firm continued; whether it was revoked and if revoked, the duration for which it remained in operation.;