I.P.MUKERJI,J. - (1.) This application is framed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. But during the course of hearing of the application Mr. Sarkar learned counsel for the petitioner tried run an alternative case that the appointing authority or appointed arbitrator was not proceeding with the arbitration with due diligence or was refusing to act. Hence, he should be removed under Section 14 of the said Act.
(2.) Now, the short background of the case is that on 31st October, 2012 the parties entered into a loan cum hypothecation agreement. A loan of Rs. 20,00,000/- advanced by the respondent with which the petitioner bought a Mahindra MN 25 Tipper of 25 tons. The loan amount was to be paid in monthly instalments.
(3.) The agreement contained an arbitration clause by which the respondent had the right to nominate an arbitrator. The petitioner allegedly committed default in the payment of the instalments.;