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 th