The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for parties to comply with the provisions of Section 11(5) of the Arbitration Act, 1995 for the valid appointment of a sole arbitrator.

( 1 ) BY this Appeal, the appellant challenges the judgment dated 5th august, 2000 passed by the 3rd Extra Joint district Judge, Pune in Misc. Application no. 586 of 1998.

( 2 ) THE facts that are material and relevant for deciding this petition are that the petitioner/pune Municipal Corporation had entered into a contract with the Respondent. The dispute arose between the parties. The agreement had an arbitration clause. On 1st october, 1996 the Respondent issued a notice styling it as notice under Section 9 of the arbitration Act, 1940. The arbitration clause was invoked and the Hon'ble Mr Justice M. L. Pendse (retd.) was appointed as the sole arbitrator. It was stated that if the petitioner desires to appoint an arbitrator of their own then they shall do so within 15 days and it was also stated that if they fail to appoint their own arbitrator, the arbitrator appointed by the respondent shall be the sole arbitrator, and he will proceed with the matter. Another notice was issued on 8-11-1996 by the Respondent stating therein that as the Arbitration Act, 1995 had already come into force, the notice dated 1st October, 1996 should be taken to be a notice under Section 10 of the new Act and therefore the Petitioner had 30 days to communicate the name of its arbitrator. It was stated that since the period of 30 days came to an end on 5-10- 1996, in the absence of any communication from the Petitioner, now the arbitrator appointed by the Respondent shall act as the sole arbitrator. It appears that the sole arbitrator issued a notice dated 10th December, 1996 to the Petitioner/corporation stating therein that the arbitration proceeding will commence from 24-12-1996. The Petitioner/corporation addressed a letter dated 23rd December, 1996 to the learned Arbitrator stating therein that the petitioner/corporation is considering the question of appointing an independent arbitrator on behalf of the Corporation or to accept the appointment of Mr. Justice Pendse (retd.) as the sole arbitrator and therefore, two monms time was sought from the learned arbitrator. The learned Arbitrator did not grant two months time, but he granted only two weeks time. There was no further communication from the petitioner/corporation in this regard. Ultimately in the arbitration proceedings an objection was raised to the jurisdiction of the sole-arbitrator. The objection was that the appointment of the sole arbitrator is not in accordance with the provisions of 1996 Act. That objection was decided by the learned Arbitrator by his order dated 3rd September, 1997. The learned arbitrator, thereafter, proceeded with the matter and made the final award. The award was challenged under Section 34 of the Act. The application was registered as Misc. Application no. 586 of 1998. The learned 3rd Exrta Joint district Judge, as observed above, decided the petition by order dated 5th August, 2000. The learned District Judge upheld the ruling of the learned Arbitrator on the question of jurisdiction.

( 3 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the arbitration clause between the parties does not provide for number of arbitrators and therefore, in terms of the provisions of sub-section 2 of the section 10 of the Act, it is obvious that the appointment can be of the sole arbitrator. The learned Counsel submits that there was no agreement between the parties agreeing on the procedure of appointment of the arbitrator and therefore, in terms of sub-section 5 of Section 11, a notice could have been given by the respondent to the Petitioner communicating the name of the person to be appointed as the sole arbitrator. After the Petitioner/corporation fails to agree to that name, then the power to make the appointment will pass on to the Hon'ble chief Justice of this Court and therefore, only the sole arbitrator appointed by the Chief Justice could get the jurisdiction to make the award. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that th