PRASAR BHARATI Vs. DRISHIT INDIA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Section 11(6)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') filed by Prasar Bharati for appointment of an independent arbitrator.

(2.) This petition again raises the questions which repeatedly arise during proceedings for the appointment of an independent arbitrator under Section 11(6)(c) of the Act. The petitioner had entered into an Accredition Agreement dated 31st May, 1995 with the respondent by which the respondent was required to make payment of advertisement and other related bills jointly and severally with advertisers. Clause 5 of the agreement between the parties providing for settlement of disputes by way of arbitration reads as follows:

(3.) That admittedly upon disputes arising between the parties and in accordance with the above clause, the petitioner had called upon the Director General, Doordarshan and the respondent to appoint an arbitrator by addressing a communication to the Director General as provided in the aforesaid Clause on 6th March, 2003 by a letter admittedly received by the Office of the D.G., Doordarshan as well as the respondent. It is also not in dispute that as per the arbitration clause between the parties, Shri Rakesh Sehgal, Deputy Director General was appointed as the Arbitrator vide letter dated 1st September, 2003 to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties. However on 24th November, 2003, Shri Sehgal declined to continue as arbitrator. It is stated that the arbitrator vacancy has not been filled up as all the officers have withdrawn in view of lack of time. Consequently the petitioner has moved this petition under Section 11(6)(c) of the Act for appointment of the arbitration as per the arbitration agreement as the Director General, Doordarshan has waived his right to appoint the arbitrator and accordingly the petitioners Counsel prays that the Court may appoint an independent arbitrator. In reply to the arbitration petition, Mr. R.K. Dhawan appears on behalf of the respondents and has contended that the petition is barred by time and it is the petitioner who has abandoned the arbitration proceedings and thus the present petition under Section 11(6)(c) of the Act is barred by limitation. The position of law in respect of these issues was summed up by this Court in para 5 of Prasar Bharati v. M/s. Stracon (India) Limited, reported as 114 (2004) DLT 562=2004 VII AD (DELHI) 513, which reads as follows: