(1.) THIS is a reference made by the learned arbitrator under the provisions of section 13 (b) of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The question that has been submitted for the opinion of the Court is "can a party by conduct either waiver of objection or by acquiescence impliedly consent to appointment of a Sole Arbitrator?" this question arose in the following factual background.
(2.) ADMITTEDLY there is a contract entered into between the claimant and the respondent dated 31-7-1991. There is an arbitration clause in that agreement, which reads as under:-Please note that any dispute or difference arising out of this contract shall be settled by an arbitration as per the provisions of the Indian Arbitration Act x of 1940. The venue of any such arbitration shall be in Greater Bombay. "
(3.) IT is clear from the notice dated 25th October, 1994 that the claimant issued this notice presupposing that the arbitration was to be conducted by two arbitrators. One each to be appointed by both the parties. The letter dated 25th October, 1994 was replied to by the respondents. In that reply there is nothing said by the respondent about the appointment of the arbitrator. All that was said was that the claimant should lodge his claim with the underwriters. On 9th December, 1994, the claimant wrote to the arbitrator appointed by them referring to their notice dated 25th October, 1994 and stating that as the respondents have failed to appoint their arbitrator within 15 days of the notice under section 9 (b) of the Arbitration Act, Shri Walawalkar is appointed as a sole arbitrator. It appears that information was also given by the claimant to the respondents. It appears thereafter Shri Walawalkar the arbitrator issued notice to the parties. In response to that notice the respondents appeared before the arbitrator and filed their reply. Para one of that reply reads as under:-At the outset, the respondents say that they have not consented to the appointment of Shri R. W. Walawalkar as the sole arbitrator. "