The appointment of an Arbitrator after the expiry of thirty days or after the filing of the petition is not maintainable under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

MANMOHAN SINGH, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 read with the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015 for appointment of an Arbitrator for adjudicating the disputes between the parties in terms of the Agreement dated 14th November, 2012.

2. Existence of the disputes and execution of the Agreement which contains the Arbitration Clause has not been disputed by the respondents.

3. The only plea taken by the respondents is that the final notice of recovery was issued by the petitioner on 23rd February, 2016 and as per Clause 34 of the Agreement dated 14th November, 2012, the respondent had appointed a sole Arbitrator by way of reply dated 21st March, 2016, within the period of thirty days. Therefore, the present petition is not maintainable.

4. The petitioner-Company is engaged in the business of sale and marketing of different jewellery items including earrings, costumes jewellery, jewellery case, cufflinks, medallions, necklaces, ornamental pins, ornaments, pearls, trinkets, bags and other women accessories through e-commerce platform, business to business transactions and other modes of sale under brand name "Juvalia" and has goodwill and reputation in the market.

5. The respondent No.1 is engaged in the business of Courier and Logistics and also providing related services. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 are Directors of respondent No.1-Company and are managing and looking after all the affairs.

6. For discharge of their liabilities, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 had also issued various cheques which stood dishonoured. Even the demand notices were not replied. Therefore, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are being impleaded as the necessary parties.

7. The Directors of the respondent No.1-Company had represented that they are reputed Courier and Cargo Company and had offered to provide the services for delivery of goods to the customers at different places and also to collect the payments against the shipments sent under Cash on Delivery (COD) transaction and also to provide the related services for Delhi/NCR region.

8. Considering the representations and assurances made by the respondents, the petitioner had agreed to avail the services of the respondent No.1-Company. Upon the settlement of terms and conditions, an Agreement dated 14th November, 2012 was executed by the respondent No.1-Company. As per the Agreement, since the petitioner had been selling and marketing products through online mode and other modes, against some of the orders, the payments were to be collected at the time of delivery of the product to the concerned customer. As per the terms of the Agreement, respondent No.1-Company was required to remit the collected amount to the petitioner within the stipulated time period. Further in consideration of the said services and in order to discharge its obligations including remittance of payments collected by the respondents, the petitioner-Company was required to make the payment to the respondent No. 1 as per the agreement, on submission of the bills by the respondent No.1-Company.

9. The petitioner had been sending its goods through the respondent No.1 for delivery to the customers and the said respondent had been collecting the payments against the shipments from the customers. The respondents have been remitting the payments but such payments were short against the shipments given for delivery. Time and again, the petitioner requested the respondents for payment of such overdue amounts and remittance of amounts regularly. The respondent No.2 assured and had promised to clear the overdue amounts and also to remit the payments on time against the shipments.

10. The respondents had issued a cheque dated 6th December, 2013 amounting to Rs. 2 lacs but the said cheque was dishonored. After issuance of statutory notice dated 26th December, 2013 to the respondents, the petitioner had filed a Complaint Case under Section 138 of t