G.S. KULKARNI, J.

1. This is an application under Section 11 read with Section 14 and 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act'), whereby the petitioner prays for appointment of a substitute arbitrator on behalf of the respondent, in place of the arbitrator previously appointed by the Court by an order passed under Section 11(6) of the Act.

2. The relevant facts are required to be noted:-

An agreement dated 30 October 2015 was entered between the petitioner and the respondent titled as "Services General Terms and Conditions Agreement" (for short 'the said agreement'). Clause 15.7 of the said agreement is the arbitration agreement between the parties whereunder the parties agreed to refer the disputes for adjudication by a panel of three arbitrators. The arbitration clause reads thus:-

"15.7. Dispute Resolution. In the event of any dispute of difference arising out of the subject matter of this Agreement, the parties shall undertake to resolve such disputes amicably. If disputes and differences cannot be settled amicably then such disputes shall be referred to bench of three arbitrators, where each party will nominate one arbitrator and the two arbitrators shall appoints a third arbitrator. Arbitration award shall be binding on both parties. The arbitration shall be held in Mumbai and each party will bear the expenses of their appointed arbitrator. The expense of the third arbitrator shall be shared by the parties. The arbitration process will be government by the Arbitration & Conciliation Act,1996."

3. Disputes and differences had arisen between the parties under the said agreement. The petitioner hence invoked the arbitration agreement and nominated Mr.Justice V.C.Daga (Retd) as an arbitrator on behalf of the petitioner and called upon the respondent to appoint its arbitrator as per the arbitration agreement. Respondent, however, did not acceed to this request of the petitioner, interalia for a reason that the petitioner had played a fraud on the respondent, in inducing the respondent to enter into the said agreement. In these circumstances the petitioner approached this Court by filing an application under Section 11(6) of the Act being Commercial Arbitration Application No.61 of 2018. The said application was intensely contested by the respondent. This Court by an order dated 30 November 2018 allowed the said application by appointing Mr.Justice D.B.Bhosale, former Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court as a nominee arbitrator on behalf of the respondent. This order passed by the Court was challenged by the respondent before the Supreme Court in a Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) no.33555/2018. The Supreme Court by an order dated 2 January 2019 did not interfere in the order passed by this Court and disposed the Special Leave Petition in terms of the following order:-

"O R D E R

Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the relevant material.

We are not inclined to interfere with the order impugned in the Special Leave petition. However, the two Arbitrators in question, namely, Mr.Justice V.C.Daga, former Judge of the Bombay High Court and Mr.Justice D.B.Bhosale, former Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court, shall now proceed to appoint the third Arbitrator.

In special leave petition is, accordingly disposed of.

4. As per the above directions of the Supreme Court the two learned Arbitrators as appointed on behalf of the respective parties appointed Mr.Justice Madan B.Lokur, Former Judge of the Supreme Court as the Presiding Arbitrator and an arbitral tribunal was so constituted, which entered an arbitral reference.

5. On 25 March 2019 Mr.Justice D.B.Bhosale (Retd), the arbitrator appointed by this Court for the respondent, addressed two letters, one to the co-arbitrators and one to the parties and their Advocates, interalia recording that he has been appointed as a Member Lokpal (Judicial), under the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act,2013, effective immediately, and consequently, w