The Managing Director of a company authorized to appoint an arbitrator under an arbitration agreement continues to have the authority to fill up any vacancy caused by the refusal of the previously appointed arbitrator to act, unless specifically restricted by the agreement or by an order of the Court.

( 1 ) THIS is application for interim stay of the operation of the judgment and order dated September 29, 1983 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court appointing a member of the Bar an arbitrator for the adjudication of all disputes as raised by the respondent in the application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act as well as the counter claims as made by the appellant in the affidavit-in-opposition. The application has been filed by the appellant, the West Bengal Essential Commodities Supply Corporation Ltd. , a government undertaking in the connected appeal preferred against the above judgment and order of the learned Judge passed under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act.

( 2 ) ON April 7, 1981 the respondent, M/s. International Trading Corporation of India, a proprietorship firm entered into agreement with the appellant for the supply of crushed common salt and superfine salt for the year 1981-82. The appellant was described in the said agreement as 'purchaser' and the 'respondent as "seller". Clause 10 of the agreement which is an arbitration clause runs as follows:--"10. In the event of any dispute and difference arising under this Agreement regarding construction thereof or in respect of any other matter or thing relating to this agreement either during the continuance of this Agreement or after termination thereof, the same shall be referred to the sole arbitration of an Arbitrator to be appointed by the Managing Director of the purchaser. No objection can be raised regarding such appointment either on the ground that the Arbitrator is or was an employee of the purchaser or the said Arbitrator has or had anything to do relating to this Agreement. The Award of the said Arbitrator shall be final and binding on both the parties to this Agreement"

( 3 ) THE respondent filed an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act on January 27, 1983, inter alia, praying therein for the filing of the arbitration agreement by the appellant, for reference of the disputes as raised by the respondent to arbitration in terms of the agreement and for the appointment of an arbitrator as envisaged in the agreement.

( 4 ) IT was inter alia alleged by the respondent in the said application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act that pursuant to the order of the appellant, the respondent had been supplying crushed common salt. But, suddenly, the appellant by its telegram dated February 22, 1982 instructed the respondent to stop despatch of crushed common salt until further order. Thereafter, in spite of repeated requests made by the respondent, the appellant did not allow the respondent to supply the balance quantity of salt and, ultimately, the appellant by its letter dated September 16, 1982 cancelled the contract unilaterally and thereby committed breach thereof. The respondent, by an Advocate's letter dated November 10, 1982, called upon the appellant to make payment of the sum of Rs. 7,71,212. 50 alleged to be the amount of loss suffered by it together with interest thereon at the rate of 18% per annum and also demanded from the appellant the refund of security deposit being the sum of Rs. 25,000/ -.

( 5 ) THE application was opposed by the appellant by an affidavit-in-opposition. In the affidavit-in-opposition, besides dealing with the allegations of the respondent as made in the application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, it was alleged that in reply to the Advocate's letter of the respondent dated December 2, 1982, the appellant by its letter dated January 15, 1983 sent by registered post informed the respondent as also its Advocate of the appointment of an arbitrator by the Managing Director of the appellant in terms of Clause 10 of the said agreement dated April 7, 1981. The said letter was duly received by the appellant on January 22, 1983. Further, it was alleged in the affidavit-in-opposition that the appellant by its letter dated February 14, 1983 informed the respondent's Advocate of t