M PARKASH Vs. GOODWILL INDIA LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -

(2.) THIS appeal raises a question of law which, as at pressnt advissd, I find is not fully covered by precedent. Whether Section 8 or Section 20 of the Arbitration Act has to be availed by the first respondent in the circumstances of the case is the question to be decided. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are these.

(3.) THERE may be an arbitration agreement in which an arbitrator is not named but it is provided that he will be appointed with the consent of both the parties to the agreement. In such a case on disputes arising under the agreement it is open to a party without going to Court to first take recourse to the procedure prescribed by Section 8 of the Arbitration Act. The party can name an arbitrator and call upon the other party to concur in the appointment. If the other party concurs, there is an end of the matter. If the other party suggests some other name, the first party may concur in that appointment and that will be the end of the matter. If the parties cannot concur, recourse has to be had to Section 20 of the Arbitration Act. It is not necessary for the party to have recourse to Section 8 prior to filing an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act. Indeed, a reading of Section 20(1) makes it clear. The remedies under Section 8(2) and Section 20(1) are alternate remedies where the arbitrator is not named (See Smt. Balika Devi and another v. Kedar Nath Puri, A.I.R. 1956 Allahabad 377).