SATISH RATHI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The arbitration clause between the parties is admitted. The petitioner invoked the arbitration clause by way of letter dated 24.8.2005 which is not denied by the respondents. On failure of the respondents to supply the vacancy in terms of the arbitration clause, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, `the Act') on 25.10.2005. After receiving the notice of the said petition, the respondents had appointed the Sole Arbitrator on 10.1.2006.

(2.) Learned counsel for the respondents has contended that in view of the appointment of the Arbitrator, in terms of the arbitration clause, the arbitration application under Section 11(6) of the Act has become infructuous. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that limitation for supply of vacancy had expired on 23.9.2005 as the arbitration clause was invoked on 24.8.2005 but the respondents did not appoint the sole Arbitrator within stipulated period to adjudicate upon all the disputes between the parties and, therefore, the petitioner has been compelled to file arbitration application under Section 11(6) of the Act in this Court. Only on the date of receipt of notice of the arbitration application, the Arbitrator had been appointed by the respondents.

(3.) I have given careful consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties. In view of the fact that the Arbitrator was not appointed within the stipulated period, the respondents have lost the right to supply the vacancy in terms of the arbitration clause, therefore, the argument advanced by the counsel for the respondents that the Arbitrator was appointed on 10.1.2006 is without any merit.