SANJIB BANERJEE, J. - (1.) Though the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner would accept the appointment of an arbitrator by the relevant appointing authority and the same was recorded in the order dated August 11, 2011, the petitioner approached the court on the next available working day and retracted from such position. However, since this matter was pending for a decision on a legal issue with two other matters, the petitioner's retraction was not immediately recorded.
(2.) In this request under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the respondent has taken two objections. The respondent says that the petitioner should have explored the possibility of a reconciliation between the parties before making a request for an arbitral reference. The respondent also says that the petitioner should have sought the constitution of the arbitral tribunal under a particular proforma that was applicable.
(3.) The arbitration agreement is contained in Clause 25 of the general conditions governing Central Public Works Department contracts. The relevant clause does not require any attempt at reconciliation nor is the invocation of the arbitration agreement subject to any attempt at reconciliation. The clause does not specify that the request for constitution of an arbitral tribunal would be in a particular format. The respondent has not been able to demonstrate that either the general conditions governing the contract or the specific contract between the parties contained any particular format under which the petitioner was required to apply to the appointing authority for constituting an arbitral tribunal. Neither ground urged on behalf of the respondent appeals. No other objection has been raised either in the affidavit or in course of the hearing.;