- (1.) THIS application u/s 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been filed with the prayer for appointment of the Sole Arbitrator to resolve the claims and disputes, arising out of the partnership dated 1.4.1996, in respect of accounts, business, assets and property of the partnership for which notice dated 22.11.2006 was served on the non-applicants asking for rendition of account etc. and the same was replied to. The Applicants proposed the name of Shri Sohan Lal Gupta as the Sole Arbitrator and vide letter dated 27.4.2009 informed the non-applicants, which was not agreed to by the other side and the name of Shri Satish Chand Mittal, Advocate was suggested by the non applicants on 30.4.2009, which was not accepted by the Applicants. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the present arbitration application has been filed for appointment of the Sole Arbitrator.
(2.) THE non applicants filed reply to the arbitration application in which some preliminary objections have been raised. The subsequent developments which took place during the pendency of the arbitration application, were brought on record by the Applicants by filing Application u/s 151 CPC, No.5101 dated 22.2.2010. During the pendency of this arbitration application, both the parties have agreed to appoint Shri Jagdish Chandra Mittal, Advocate and Shri Rajendra Prasad Gupta, Advocate for resolving the dispute in a proceeding held between them on 24.10.2009 (Anx.NA/13), which has been referred to as additional arbitration agreement. In the said additional arbitration agreement, it has been mentioned that for staying the proceedings pending before the Court, both the parties will make proper application before the Court and in case the matter is not resolved by arbitration between 24.10.2009 and 25.11.2009,both the parties will be free to request the Court for start of the proceedings. Counsel for the non-applicants submits that the said proceedings were continued but because of the wrong appreciation,the same could not proceed in a regular manner therefore, on 25.11.2010, the extended period of limitation of one year from 25.11.2009 for concluding the arbitration proceedings expired. Counsel for the non-applicants further submit that during the said period of one year also, the arbitration has since not concluded, therefore, after expiry of the period of one year, the applicants have filed an application u/s 15 of the Arbitration Act on 31.1.2011(Application No.3230) for termination of the mandate of arbitration wherein they have also raised the issue that there was no agreement, as alleged by the non applicants for extension of any time and all further proceedings on and after 25.11.2009 were vitiated. In the alternative, it has been submitted that since one year has expired, the mandate of the Arbitrator terminated on the expiry of the said period of one year and the arbitration since not concluded in the said period of one year, it cannot proceed further in view of 15 of the Act. Reply to the aforesaid application has been filed and objections have been raised by the non-applicants.
(3.) I have gone through record of the arbitration application and further considered the aforesaid submissions of counsel for the parties. It appears that the present case is not essentially of the nature where there is no likelihood of resolving the dispute and the period of one year expired on 25.11.2010 and the proceedings could not be concluded. There is no further extension of time, therefore, I deem it proper to terminate the mandate of the two Arbitrators as suggested by the parties. With the consent of the counsel for the parties,I deem it proper to appoint Shri Bihari Lal Gupta, Retired R.H.J.S. (Distt Judge cadre) as the Sole Arbitrator and the matter is referred to him for resolving the disputes between the parties, arising out of the partnership deed dated 1.4.1996. The Sole Arbitrator will fix his fee according to the Arbitration Manual. All objections would be open to be raised by the respondent before the Sole Arbitrator. ;