D. S. R. VARMA, J.

( 1 ) HEARD both sides.

( 2 ) THIS Writ Petition is directed against the order, dated 4-3-2005, passed by the Hon ble the Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra pradesh, Hyderabad, in Arbitration application No. 50 of 2005.

( 3 ) THE petitioner is a contractor, the respondent No. 1 is the company and the respondent No. 2 is the Registrar (Judicial)/ designated Officer under Section 11 (5) of the Scheme framed by the High Court of andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, under the arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for brevity "the new Act" ).

( 4 ) FOR the sake of convenience, the petitioner, the respondent No. 1 and the respondent No. 2 will be referred to as "the contractor", "the company" and "the designated Officer", respectively.

( 5 ) THE undisputed facts are as under: there is a contract entered into between the contractor and the Company with regard to certain works, the details of which are not relevant. The contract contains an arbitration clause in Clause No. 21. Subsequently, owing to some disputes, one Sri P. R. Dhar was appointed as sole Arbitrator, with judicial intervention, in O. S. No. 72 of 2002 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Kandukur, Prakasam district. The contractor came to know that sri P. R. Dhar, Arbitrator, was one of the directors of the Company. Consequently, an application was filed under Sections 12 and 13 of the new Act expressing doubts regarding independence and impartiality of the arbitrator. During the pendency of the said proceedings, arbitration proceedings were stalled and, eventually, Sri P. R. Dhar, arbitrator, resigned on account of his ill- health. Hence, the present application came to be filed before the Hon ble the Chief Justice invoking the jurisdiction under Section 11 (5) read with Section 15 (2) of the new Act, seeking appointment of a substitute Arbitrator. During the course of hearing of said application, it was brought to the notice of this Court by way of a counter-affidavit that consequent upon the resignation of the sole Arbitrator, the company, with due promptitude, appointed one Sri S. K. Biswas, as sole Arbitrator, in accordance with clause 21 of the agreement. The contractor questioned the said action stating that a fresh Arbitrator is to be appointed under Section 11 (6) of the new Act, by the hon ble the Chief Justice. Eventually, the said application was dismissed on the ground that the company had already appointed a substitute Arbitrator in the place of original arbitrator in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement and as such nothing survives in the arbitration application. Hence, the present Writ Petition.

( 6 ) THOUGH the contentions of the contractor and the company and the case law relied on by both sides before the learned Chief Justice as well as before us are the same, still we feel it necessary to put on record the contentions in nutshell.

( 7 ) SRI C. V. Mohan Reddy, learned Senior counsel appearing for the contractor, contends that clause 21 of the agreement does not authorize the company to appoint a substitute Arbitrator inasmuch as no such power was reserved under the said clause with the company; that the expression "according to the rules". contained in sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the new Act, was erroneously interpreted by the Hon ble the chief Justice; that in the absence of such an express intention of the parties authorizing one of them to appoint a substitute Arbitrator under Clause 21 of the agreement and in case of failure of agreement between the parties for substituting the Arbitrator, an application made under Section 11 (5) read with Section 15 (2) of the new Act, is maintainable and that the rules referred to under sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the new Act would become superfluous and the object of having an independent and impartial arbitrator would get defeated.

( 8 ) PERCONTRA, Sri C. B. Ram Mohan Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for the company, however, supported the action of the company in a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document