JUDGMENT

Leave granted.

2. This appeal arises from the judgment of the Division Bench of Madras High Court in O.S.A. No. 281 / 92 dated January 5, 1993 (reported in AIR 1993 Madras 265).

3. The appellants contract was terminated by the respondent and in consequence thereof, by notices dated July 23, 1991 and August 21, 1991, the appellants exercising the option under clause 17 of General Condition of Contract, called upon the Engineer in Chief to appoint sole Arbitrator, in terms of the contract, to adjudicate the dispute that had. arisen between them. Since no action was taken by the respondents, the appellants filed a suit on March 4, 1992 under S. 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for short the Act, requesting the Court to appoint an arbitrator. Learned single Judge of the High Court by his judgment dated Sept. 23, 1992 appointed Justice M. A. Sattar Syeed, a retired Judge of the High Court as Sole Arbitrator. On appeal, a Division Bench of that High Court agreed with the single Judge that despite the issue of notice calling upon the respondent to appoint the Arbitrator in terms of the contract, no action was taken by the respondent. Its suggestion that the respondent could agree fo