RELIANCE WEBSTORE PVT. LTD Vs. PUSHPAM COMMUNICATIONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996,the Petitioner seeks to challenge the award dated 26 th January, 2012 passed by the learned Arbitrator allowing some of the claims made by the Respondent.

(2.) The Petitioner is challenging the said award on various grounds. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that by notice dated 15 th November, 2009, the Respondent had suggested the name of Justice P. V. Kakade (Red.) as Arbitrator and had called upon the Petitioner to agree with the said name or to suggest any other name. The Petitioner did not agree to the name suggested by the Respondent.

(3.) It appears that the learned Arbitrator thereafter proceeded with the matter on the presumption that he was appointed by consent of both the parties. Before the learned Arbitrator, the Petitioner made an application, raising an objection about the jurisdiction of the learned arbitrator on the ground that he was not appointed by consent of both the parties but was unilaterally appointed by the Respondent.