RAVI CHANDRA NAIK Vs. SAMIR CHAWLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner Ravi Chandra Naik filed the petition under Section 15(2) read with Section 12, 13 and 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of substitute arbitrator as the earlier sole arbitrator withdrew from his office. The prayer made in the petition is that substitute arbitrator be appointed in place of Mr.S.C. Chawla.

(2.) MR .Tanuj Khurana, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, has raised two points; first that there was no live issue left between the parties as controversy is ceased to exist in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties and issuance of No Dues Letter issued by the petitioner to the respondent and second that the petition is hopelessly time barred and it is not necessary now to adjudicate the disputes which do not exist in view of the conduct of the petitioner.

(3.) MR .S.C. Chawla, son of late Sh. I.D. Chawla was appointed as the sole arbitrator for adjudication of the dispute. The petitioner before him filed an application/written statement dated 25th April, 2011 under Section 13(2) read with section 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The allegation of the petitioner against Mr.Chawla was that the sole arbitrator without passing any order on the application and without issuing any notice had stated that his appointment cannot be challenged by the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter also filed the claim statement on 29 th July, 2011. However, on 26th September, 2011 Mr.S.C. Chawla withdrew from his office. The present application has now been filed by the petitioner for appointment of substitute arbitrator in place of Mr.S.C. Chawla.