CIPLA LTD Vs. RELIANCE INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the respective parties. Rule, returnable forthwith. Mr. Sonak waives notice for the respondent. The matter is heard finally by consent.

(2.) THIS Court has issued notice, returnable on 26. 6. 2009 to the sole respondent. Today, Advocate Mr. Sonak, on behalf of the respondent, has tendered an affidavit-in-reply. A copy is served to the learned Counsel appearing for the applicant. It is marked "a" for identification. Taken on record.

(3.) ADVOCATE appearing for the applicant has pointed out clause No. 8, titled as "arbitration" from the agreement, which is on record. (page 20 ). The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner also referred to the communication addressed by the applicant to the respondent dated November 29, 2008. Para 4 of the communication makes a reference of appointment of Hon'ble Mr. Justice G. D. Kamat, former Judge of the High Court of Bombay, as the sole Arbitrator. In view of clause 8 of the agreement, the respondent, vide its communication was called upon to appoint and/or nominate a nominee of their choice. Advocate Mr. Sonak, from the Affidavit para 3, has pointed out that His Lordship Mr. Justice E. Padmanabhan, Former judge of Chennai High Court, has been appointed as an arbitrator on behalf of the respondent. Both the learned Counsel agree that now the two Arbitrators appointed by them to appoint an Arbitrator who shall preside over the Tribunal for arbitration amongst the parties. Such a procedure is mentioned in clause (4) of the communication of the present applicant, addressed to the respondent, dated 29. 11. 2008. On this procedure, there is no dispute amongst the parties.