SANJIB BANERJEE,J. - (1.) A piquant situation has arisen pursuant to the manner in which the reference has been conducted and a previous order passed by this Court in connection therewith. The petitioner herein as claimant sought a reference following disputes having arisen under a contract between the parties. The disputes were referred to arbitration. Three arbitrators resigned upon being transferred. Before a fourth arbitrator could be nominated, the petitioner carried an application under Section 11 of the 1996 Act by way of A.P. No. 500 of 2010. However, prior to that application being filed, the fourth arbitrator was appointed by the appointing authority though the petitioner claims to have learnt of the fourth appointment after the institution of A.P. No. 500 of 2010. In any event, the order dated April 12, 2011 passed on A.P. No. 500 of 2010 noticed that the fourth arbitrator had been appointed on August 23, 2010 and the request under Section 11 of the 1996 Act was filed before the Chief Justice of this Court or his designate on August 23, 2010. The Court held that since there was no unreasonable delay in the appointment of the arbitrator, the fourth appointment could not be invalidated and a fresh appointment made at the behest of the petitioner.
(2.) A.P. No. 500 of 2010 was disposed of by directing the fourth arbitrator "to conclude the reference and publish the award within a period of three months from date." The Court observed that the reference would have to be in Calcutta. The last sentence of the relevant paragraph provided that, "The Arbitrator will not be replaced in case of his promotion or transfer." The fourth arbitrator was transferred out of Calcutta and he promptly resigned. It appears that the order dated April 12, 2011 may have then come to the arbitrator's notice, whereupon he issued a letter on June 27, 2011 to the parties to the reference suggesting that the proceedings in the reference had been concluded on April 29, 2011 and all that was left was to make and publish the award. He required the claimant to file non-judicial stamp papers of appropriate value for publishing the award.
(3.) The claimant, however, wrote back to the arbitrator on July 8, 2011 that since the arbitrator had already resigned and no appointment had been made by the appointing authority within the reasonable period of thirty days after the resignation of the fourth arbitrator, the petitioner was entitled to seek a fresh appointment of arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties.;