1. By this application filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short “the Arbitration Act”), the applicant seeks appointment of an arbitrator on behalf of the respondents (in addition to the arbitrator nominated by the applicant) as per clause 8 of the Memorandum of Agreed Terms (hereinafter referred to as “the said agreement”) dated 7th December 2006. The applicant has also filed a notice of motion inter alia praying for condonation of delay of 536 days in filing the present commercial arbitration application. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this application are as under :-

2. By the said agreement dated 7th December 2006 entered into between the respondent no.1 and 2 and Mr. Ravindra Satish Trasikar, hubund of the respondent no.3 who subsequently expired as vendors, the respondent no.4 as confirming party and the applicant as a purchaser, those vendors agreed to sell and transfer the suit property for a total consideration of Rs.14 crore in favour of the purchaser.

3. It is the case of the applicant that under the said agreement, the applicant paid certain amounts to the vendors. The said agreement contains arbitration clause 8 which is extracted as under :-

“8. In the event of any disputes and differences between the parties herein, the same shall be referred to the arbitration of the Arbitrators to be appointed by each parties and the decision of such Arbitrator/Umpire shall be final and binding and the same shall be governed as per the Indian Arbitration and Reconciliation Act, 1996 and the same shall take place in Mumbai.”

4. The dispute arose between the parties. It is the case of the applicant that on 24th June 2013, the respondent no.2 by his advocate's letter dated 24th June 2013 alleged that the applicant had failed to obtain the permissions as per clause 4 of the said agreement and thus the said agreement automatically stood terminated. On 23rd July 2013 and 5th August 2013, the applicant invoked the arbitration clause recorded under clause 8 of the said agreement and called upon the respondents to concur with the appointment of the arbitrator suggested by the applicant within a period of 30 days.

5. On 6th August 2013, the applicant through its advocates addressed a letter to the respondent nos.1 and 4 informing them about several correspondences exchanged between the applicant's advocate and the advocates for the respondent nos.2 and 3 and also provided photocopies thereof. There was no response from the respondents to the said correspondence. The applicant had accordingly filed a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act for seeking various interim measures.

6. On 31st August 2013, the respondent no.3 did not agree with the name of the arbitrator suggested by the applicant and suggested another name for appointment as an arbitrator.

7. On 16th September 2013, this Court dismissed the arbitration petition No.741 of 2013 filed by the applicant under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act on the ground that the said agreement was unregistered and insufficiently stamped. The said order dated 16th September 2013 however was subsequently clarified by this Court by an order dated 25th September 2013 that this Court had only refused the ad-interim relief in favour of the petitioner therein and not dismissed the petition. This Court however, passed an order that since the said agreement was inadequately stamped and was not registered, the same was required to be impounded and to be sent for stamping and registration to the stamp office. This Court directed the Prothonotary and Senior Master of this Court to send the original Memorandum of Agreed Terms dated 7th December 2006 for stamping. It was however directed that the said agreement shall be kept in a sealed cover/envelope after the said agreement was stamped and adjourned the said petition to 23rd December 2013. There was a delay on the part of the office of the Prothonotary and Senior Master to send the