NITIN SETHI Vs. RAJIV MEHTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this case seeks appointment of an arbitrator in respect of disputes articulated in the petition. Peculiarly, the petition was not filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short the Act) , but was filed under Section 7 & 8 of the said Act, and that too with the District Judge at the Tis Hazari Court, New Delhi.

(2.) THE record shows that, after notice was issued to the respondent vide order dated 03.05.2006, the petitioner did very little to have the respondent served in the matter. There are several orders on record which are indicative of the fact that due steps were not taken in effecting service on the respondent. To some extent, the respondent may have also been guilty of avoiding service, as there are notings of the registry to the effect that the employee of the respondent was served, or when, service was sought to be effected, the respondent was found to be out of station.

(3.) THE respondent, on the other hand, has in his reply taken the following defence: