RAJAN ROY, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) This is an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
(3.) Before proceeding with the merits of the matter it is necessary to mention that in the relief clause cancellation of appointment/ nomination of Shri Niranjan Kumar- opposite party no. 3 as Arbitrator had also been sought. Realizing the mistake, as, such a relief could not be sought under Section 11, although the other part of the relief was admissible, an application for amendment of the relief clause was filed which was objected by the opposite parties on the ground that it should not be allowed at such a belated stage. But, considering the nature of the proceedings and the technicality involved which does not materially affect the substantive disposal of the application for appointment of an Arbitrator, the application for amendment is allowed. As, it does not affect the merits, therefore, no fresh response is called for consequent to the amendment being allowed which is of a technical nature as the words 'cancel the appointment/ nomination of Shri Niranjan Kumar- opposite party no. 3' would stand deleted and the words 'appoint under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996' be substituted in its place and the words 'be appointed' as mentioned in the application, would be deleted.;