- (1.) The petitioners are questioning the decision of the acting Chief Justice dated September 23rd, 2004 appointing a former Judge of this Court as the arbitrator.
(2.) When disputes and differences arose, the second respondent wanted adjudication by the arbitral tribunal according to procedure agreed upon by the parties. In terms of the contract the parties were to appoint their respective nominees, and the "two nominees were to appoint the umpire, and thus the arbitral tribunal was to be constituted. There is no dispute that the second respondent named its nominee and duly called upon the petitioners to appoint their nominee, but the petitioners did not act for the purpose.
(3.) In the circumstances the second respondent filed an application under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Notice of the proceedings was given to the petitioners, but they chose not to enter appearance. By decision dated October 3rd, 2002 the designated Judge disposed of the application directing the matter to be placed before the Chief Justice for appointing a person as the nominee of the petitioners. Direction was also given for appointment of the umpire. When the matter was placed before the acting Chief Justice, the decision dated September 23rd, 2004 was given rescinding the appointment of the nominee of the second respondent and directing appointment of a former judge of this Court as the sole arbitrator.;