( 1 ) THIS application by the respondents under S. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure has arisen in the following circumstances :

( 2 ) THE petitioners M/s. National Research Development Corporation of India filed a petition under S. 20 of the Arbitration Act for filing of the arbitration agreement and for referring the disputes between the parties to the arbitration in accordance with clause 12 of the agreement between the parties. According to the said clause, the disputes and differences between the parties are to be referred to the sole arbitration of the Chairman, National Research Development Corporation of India and if he is unable to act, to the sole arbitration of some other person appointed by him and willing to act as such. Admittedly, on the date the petition came up for hearing before the learned single Judge of this Court, the Office of the Chairman was lying vacant. This Court, by agreement of the parties, directed the filing of the agreement and reference of the disputes to the Chairman, and the Union of India was directed to appoint the Chairman within one month from that date. It was further directed and again by agreement of the parties that in case the office of the Chairman was not filled in within one month from that date, the differences and disputes between the parties shall automatically stand referred to the sole arbitration of the Managing Director of the petitioner company and if he was unwilling to arbitrate himself to the sole arbitration of another person to be appointed by him. Consequently the office of the Chairman remained vacant and the disputes stood referred to the Managing Director of the petitioner company who, at the relevant time, was Mr. H. F. Rao. The said arbitrator entered upon the reference but on request of they respondents, the matter was adjourned from time to time and finally it came up before the arbitrator on 7-7-1986. By that date the said Shri H. S. Rao had retired as Managing Director of the petitioner. The parties, however agreed to continue with the arbitration proceedings and by mutual consent the time for making the award was extended by a period of four months from that date. Time was granted to the respondents for filing reply and vakalatnama and the matter was adjourned to 14-7-1986. It appears that on that date, the respondent took the objection that the arbitrator having retired from the office of the Managing Director, was not entitled to continue with the arbitration inasmuch as his appointment is by office and not by his name. In view of the previous order and consent of the parties, the arbitrator did not agree with this objection and while fixing his fee, he gave further time to the respondents for filing the written statement.

( 3 ) THEREAFTER the present application has been filed by the respondents. The prayer in this application is to the same effect that the arbitrator having relinquished the office of the Managing Director was not entitled to continue and as such the disputes and counter claims should be referred to the Chairman NRDC and if he is unwilling to act, to the nominee of the Chairman.

( 4 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant was that appointment of the arbitrator was by office and he having relinquished that office, was not entitled to continue as an arbitrator and the matter had to be referred afresh in accordance with the terms of the agreement. This contention has to be rejected in view of the various judgements and it would be sufficient to refer to a Division Bench Judgement of this Court in Ms. Sushila v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1980 Delhi 244. It was held that the arbitration clause in that case provided for the decision of disputes between the parties to the contract by the designated authority. Since the cause of action arises when the disputes arise between the parties, there can be no other meaning of the words "for the time being" except that it refers to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document