Order

The only question which requires to be determined in this appeal is whether the application of the appellant under Section 8 of the Arbi­tration Act for appointment of an Arbitrator was barred by limitation. A few dates may be noted in this connection. The term ‘respondent’ occurring hereinafter applies also to predecessors-in-interest of the respondent.

2. On 7th September, 1974 the appellant entered into a contract with the respondent under which the appellant agreed to supply Allumina Ferric of I.C.I. specification to the respondent. The contract was operative till 22.8.1975. On account of certain disputes and differ­ences which arose between the parties the appellant, on 12.9.1976, gave a notice to the respondent. The notice is not on the record of the proceedings. From the judgment of the High Court which refers to this notice, it seems that under that notice, the appellant stated that huge amounts were due to it under the said contract and it ap­pointed one Sohan Lal Saraf, Barrister-at-Law as its Arbitrator and called upon the respondent to concur in that appointment. No response was given to the notice.

3. Thereafter negotiations seem to have taken place between the par­