Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.

1. This petition invokes Sections 14 and 15 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 to declare that the mandate of respondent No. 2 appointed as the arbitrator by the chairman of respondent No. 1 stands terminated de jure or de facto. The case has had a chequered history which can be summarised as under.

2. Disputes arose out of a contract dated 18th January, 1991 between the petitioner and the respondent No. 1. Suit No. 3446/1992 under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 came to be filed by the petitioner for appointment of arbitrator. The said suit was disposed of vide judgment dated 2nd December, 1997. It is recorded in the said judgment (a) that the respondent No. 1 had terminated the agreement with the petitioner on 22nd September, 1992; (b) that the petitioner had vide its letter dated 20th June, 1992 invoked the arbitration clause in the agreement and called upon the respondent to appoint an arbitrator;

(c) that the respondent had failed to appoint the arbitrator leading the petitioner to file the suit No. 3446/1992; (d) that the respondent had, in the course of those proceedings, not disputed the arbitration agreement but had resisted the suit on the ground that an arbitrator, namely, Shri Daljit Singh, General Manager of the respondent had already appointed as the sole arbitrator on 27th January, 1993 and as such the suit had been rendered infructuous. The petitioner claimed to be entitled to have an independent arbitrator appointed.

3. This Court in the judgment dated 2nd December, 1997, inter alia, held that the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the respondent initiated action for appointment of arbitrator only upon receipt of notice of the suit; that the respondent had forfeited its right to appoint an arbitrator in terms of the arbitration agreement and the petitioner was justified to seek the appointment of an independent arbitrator. This Court, accordingly, appointed justice G.C. Jain (Retd) as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes spelt out as,

1. Whether the respondent is liable to pay the sum of Rs 1,08,47,848.00 (Rupees one crores eight lakhs forty seven thousand eight hundreds forty eight only) as per break up given in letter dated 8.9.92 annexed with the petition as annexure Q?"

2. Whether respondent is liable to pay interest @24% p.a. on the said amount from the date the same became due till its realization?

between the petitioner and the respondent.

.4. I may mention that in the aforesaid judgment of this Court, the letter dated 27th January, 1993 of the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the respondent appointing Mr Daljit Singh as arbitrator has been reproduced as under:

.NOW THEREFORE, I R.C. KEHAR, the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, NBCC Ltd., New Delhi in exercise of the powers conferred on me, do hereby appoint Shri Daljeet Singh, General Manager, NBCC Ltd., Calcutta as the sole arbitrator to decide and make his Award regarding the disputes/claims mentioned in Annexure Q of the petition bearing Suit No. 3446/96 (except the disputes/claims pertaining to the Bank Guarantees and the disputes/claims in respect of which the decision of a particular authority is stated to be as final), and also the counter-claims of the respondents, if any, subject however to their admissibility under the terms and conditions of the contract.

.5. An appeal (FAO(OS) 33/1998) was preferred by the respondent against the aforesaid judgment and which was allowed vide order dated 9th July, 1999 of a Division Bench of this Court. In the meanwhile, Justice G.C. Jain, appointed as the independent arbitrator, expired and an application was moved by the petitioner for appointment of a new arbitrator in his place. Justice Satpal was appointed by this Court vide order dated 9th September, 1998 in place of Justice G.C. Jain. The Division Bench held that the petitioner had, prior to the institution of the suit, not served any notice on the appointing authority for appointment of the arbitrator and