Harjit Singh Bedi, A.C.J. - (1.) This application has been filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act') requesting this court to appoint an arbitrator to settle the dispute between the parties inter se.
(2.) It has been pointed out by Mr. Raman Mahajan during the course of arguments that one Mr. R.B. Singh had been appointed as arbitrator on 19.08.2002 in terms of the contract and he retired from service on 30.11.2003, on which one Mr. Satish Chander was appointed as arbitrator on 18.02.2004 and he retired on 30.07.2004 and as of now one Mr. P. Tulsi Ram has been appointed as the arbitrator on 18.08.2004 and as the respondents had not appointed the arbitrator within a reasonable time, this application had been filed before this court to appoint one in terms of Section 11 of the Act. It has also been pleaded that after the retirement of Mr. R.B. Singh, the petitioner had moved the present application under Section 11 of the Act and in that eventuality it was not open to the respondents during the pendency thereof to appoint any arbitrator.
(3.) The issues raised by Mr. Mahajan have been strongly controverted by the learned Counsel for the respondents. It has been pointed out that the arbitrator had been appointed in accordance with condition No. 70 of the contract which provided that if an arbitrator resigned his appointment or vacated his office or was unable or unwilling to act due to any reason whatsoever, it was for the respondents to make a fresh appointment.;