- (1.) This appeal is against the order dated July 28, 2014 with regard to appointment of one Mr. Samit Talukdar, Senior Advocate as Arbitrator. In brief, the facts that led to filing of the appeal are as follows: Initially, one Arbitrator in terms of the agreement between the parties came to be appointed who had to be replaced with the intervention of the Court as the appellant herein before us alleged bias. Subsequently, when the second Arbitrator came to be appointed, it was also challenged. However, it went against them. When a controversy arose whether the Arbitrator, was willing to continue with the arbitration proceeding or not, he expressed by letter dated July 18, 2014 categorically indicating that he was unwilling to proceed with the reference on account of his health problem and thereby he tendered his resignation in the said letter.
(2.) XXX XXX XXX
(3.) The controversy arose here whether the new Arbitrator, who has to come in the place of Mr. Himadri Dutta, has to be appointed by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the petitioner that is the respondent before us. It was contended before the learned Judge that the substitute Arbitrator must be chosen by the Chairman of the Corporation. However, the Corporation left it to the choice of learned Single Judge to decide the appointment. The learned Judge, after referring to the order dated November 29, 2010 regarding the substitute Arbitrator, proceeded to appoint Mr. Sumit Talukdar, Senior Advocate, as Arbitrator.;