Judgment

ANIL R. DAVE, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. At the request of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the appeals are taken up for hearing as only one legal issue is involved in both the appeals.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the appellant is a contractor, who had entered into a contract with the respondent for certain construction works. There were certain disputes and therefore, as per the agreement between the parties, the disputes had to be resolved by an Arbitrator. The following clause was part of the agreement, which enabled the parties to refer the dispute to an Arbitrator:

“63.3(a)(iii). It is a term of this contract that no person other than a Gazetted Railway Officer should act as an arbitrator/umpire and if for any reason, that is not possible, the matter is not to be referred to the arbitration at all.”

4. As the respondent did not appoint an Arbitrator, an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) had been filed before the Chief Justice and ultimately Justice Kalyanmoy Ganguly, a former High Court Judge had been appointed as a sole Arbitrator.

5. In the a