JAGDISH PRASAD AGARWAL Vs. CIMMCO BIRLA LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent states that he was briefed two days ago and that he would like to file a reply.

(2.) SO far as Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is concerned, there can be no gainsaying that the function that the Court discharges is of an administrative nature. It is certainly arguable that even a notice to the opposite party may not be necessary. But nonetheless Courts are adopting the procedure of hearing the opposite party, in the interest of justice. This is not a fresh matter in view of the fact that the petitioner/applicant had to approach this Court for the appointment of Arbitrator under Section 11 because of the obduracy of the respondent in not following the legal procedure. Request for filing a reply is declined. In B.W.L. v. M.T.N.L., : 85(2000)DLT84 , I have held that a party loses its contractual right to appoint/nominate the Arbitrator if it fails to act within the stipulated period.

(3.) THIRDLY , it is well settled that the Court is not bound in any manner whatsoever to exercise powers only under the section invoked by an applicant. Instead it must fulfill the functions expected of the Court by statute. Where a vacancy has arisen, which requires to be filled up under Section 11, a reference to Section 15 is irrelevant. The Court must proceed in consonance with law.