RAVINDER SINGH CHAUHAN Vs. PRASHANT MAMGAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed under Section 8 of the Arbitration and conciliation Act. Section 8 has been wrongly mentioned while the petition is under Section 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act wherein the petitioner has made a prayer that the Court should appoint an independent Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties and the arbitration proceedings initiated by Mr. M. L. Aggarwal be stayed since Mr. M. L. Aggarwal had no mandate to arbitrate between the parties.

(2.) BRIEF facts relevant for purpose of deciding this petition are that agreement dated 15th March, 2009 between the parties provided for appointment of Arbitrator in following terms:-

(3.) THE petitioner herein vide a notice dated 17th June, 2006 invoked arbitration clause and called upon the respondent to appoint an independent arbitrator in terms of the agreement for resolution of the dispute. The respondent vide letter dated 8th May, 2008 informed the petitioner that he has appointed Mr. M. L. Aggarwal, a retired Judge of UP Higher Judicial Services as the Arbitrator for hearing and adjudicating the dispute. Thereafter, Mr. M. L. Aggarwal, initiated proceedings and the petitioner sought an adjournment from the Arbitrator and later on counsel for the petitioner vide notice informed the Arbitrator that the appointment of the Arbitrator was not in terms of the agreement. The Arbitrator was to be appointed with the consent of both the parties and since he was not appointed with consent of the petitioner therefore the petitioner would be approaching the appropriate forum for appointment of an independent Arbitrator and told the Arbitrator to adjourn the proceedings. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner, though under Section 8, with a request that Court should appoint an independent Arbitrator since the Arbitrator, Mr. M. L. Aggarwal does not have mandate to proceed with the arbitration proceedings.