RAJESH BINDAL, J. - (1.) The present application has been filed by one of the parties to the agreement challenging appointment of arbitrator by the respondent No. 1 and further with the prayer for appointment of an arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties.
(2.) The dispute arises out of a letter of sanction for Supply Chain Finance Facility extended by the respondent No. 1 to the applicant. The agreement was executed by the parties on May 25, 2019. It contains provision for arbitration, in clause 24 thereof. The parties to the agreement namely, the applicant is located in Haryana whereas the respondent No. 1 is in Maharashtra. The aforesaid agreement was renewed on August 13, 2020.
(3.) It was argued by the learned Counsel for the applicant that it was surprised to receive a communication from Centre for Alternate Dispute Resolution Excellence (CADRE) dated July 17, 2021 intimating that the respondent No. 3 has been appointed as the arbitrator for resolution of dispute between the applicant No. 1 and the respondent No. 1. Time was granted till August 21, 2021 to file response to the statement of claim and documents in support thereof. Relying on a judgment of Hon 'ble Supreme Court in Perkins Eastman Architects DPC and Ors. Vs. HSCC (India) Ltd., AIR 2020 SC 59 it was argued that a party to the agreement having interest in the dispute or the outcome thereof is ineligible to appoint an arbitrator. As in the case in hand, the arbitrator has been appointed by the party to the agreements, the same has to be declared coram non judice and a fresh arbitrator deserves to be appointed.;