VIPIN SANGHI, J.

( 1 ) PETITIONERS are members of the Rotary Club of Delhi, Rotary District 3010, comprising of Rotary Clubs in Delhi, parts of U. P and Haryana. Respondent no. 1 Shri U. N. Maira was, at the time of filing of the arbitration application the President and Respondent No. 2, Shri Pulin Trivedi, was the Hon.

( 2 ) SECRETARY of Rotary Club of Delhi. 2. Petitioners have filed the aforementioned Arbitration Application under S. 11 (6) of the Arbitration and conciliation Act, 1996 for the appointment of an Arbitrator. Petitioners claim that their request for appointment of an arbitrator made on 25. 4. 2006 was rejected by the Secretary of the Rotary Club Delhi, i. e. , Respondent No. 2 herein, vide his letter dated 11th May 2006.

( 3 ) THE dispute relates to the election to the office of President elect of the Rotary Club of Delhi for the year 2006-07. The petitioners claim that when the nomination process for the Elections to the office of President elect of the club for 2006-2007 was afoot, Petitioner No. 11 submitted her nomination proposal form on 8/12/05 at 1:55 P. M. to the Respondent No 2 herein before the meeting was called to order. The nominations, as per the deadline prescribed by the Respondent No. 1 for the same, could be submitted by 2:00 P. M. However, no endorsement as to the time of receipt was made on the same. It is further alleged that as per the norms the nomination form could have been validly submitted till the meeting was called to order.

( 4 ) IT is also alleged that no other nominations were submitted and petitioner No. 11 was the sole candidate for the post. Even the club bulletin dated 12/12/2005 containing the minutes of the meeting dated 8/12/2005 reflected the Petitioner no. 11"s name in the list of nominations received. It is alleged that on 14/12/2005 two "scrutineers" were appointed by the Respondent No. 1, in contravention of Section 6 of the club"s Bye-laws, to scrutinize the petitioner"s form. The scrutineers rejected the nomination form on grounds of it having been filed after 2:00 P. M. The General Body met on 15/12/2005 and respondent No. 2 announced that he had not seen his watch while receiving the form though the same was received before the meeting was called to order. Thereafter, it is alleged that the decision of the scrutineers rejecting the nomination form on grounds of having been filed after 2:00 P. M. was conveyed by the Respondent No 1 in the meeting held on 22. 12. 2005.

( 5 ) ON 23rd December 2005 Petitioner No. 11 sent a letter to Respondent No. 1 appealing him to withdraw his decision but the same was not received by him and subsequently it was couriered to the Respondent. Thereafter various other letters were written.

( 6 ) IT is averred that on 29/12/2005 in the Annual General Meeting before the elections took place, the petitioner was humiliated by the Respondent No. 1 and in protest the members of the club walked out and refrained from voting. Only 30 members voted in the election out of which 17 were candidates. On 4. 1. 06 a letter was sent to the Respondents by several Rotarians demanding an urgent meeting of the club to resolve this issue. However, no meeting was ever convened.

( 7 ) ON 1. 2. 06, it is averred, the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 sent a letter to the petitioner No. 11 conveying to her the unanimous ratification given by the board to the decision of the Presiding Officer as to rejection of her nomination form. To this also the Petitioners objected.

( 8 ) THE petitioner claims that Article XIV of the Constitution of the Club contains an Arbitration Agreement in the following terms:

"article XIV Arbitration- Should any dispute arise between any member or members, or a former member or members and the club, or any officer or the board of the club, relative to membership or to any alleged breach of the constitution or bylaws, or the expulsion of any member from the club, or on any account whatsoever which cannot be satisfactorily settled under