Rajiv Shakdher, J.

Prefatory facts

1. This is a petition filed under Section 14 and 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short “1996 Act”). The substantive prayers made in the petition are :-

(a) to appoint a Substitute Arbitrator in the matter

(b) fix a consolidated amount payable towards Arbitrator's fee.

(c) In addition thereto, the usual residuary prayer has been made which is to pass any other order that may be deemed fit and appropriate in the instant case.

2. The petitioners' grievance, principally, emanates from the order dated 14.07.2017, passed by the learned Arbitrator, whereby he has terminated the arbitration proceedings. Since, the order passed by the learned Arbitrator is brief, the same is extracted hereafter:-

“It is noted that the status as regard to the non-valuation of the claim by the Claimant remains the same despite specific observations made by this Tribunal on 12.4.2017 that the reliefs which are sought by the Claimant are certainly quantifiable but had not been quantified by the Claimant. Before the Ld. Coordinator also, the Ld. Counsel of the Claimant has maintained and declined to quantify the claim, which according to the Ld. Coordinator are also quantifiable, having regard to the reliefs particularly the one under Clause-18(a).

Even today on being asked, Ld. Counsel for the Claimant maintains that she cannot quantify the valuation of the claim, which is apparently unfair on the part of the Claimant. Having regard to the conduct of Ld. Counsel for the Claimant as observed by the undersigned as also by the Ld. Coordinator, I have no other option except to terminate the proceedings. Accordingly, the proceedings stand terminated.”

3. As would be evident upon a perusal of the order passed by the learned Arbitrator dated 14.07.2017, the arbitration proceedings came to be terminated in view of the failure of the petitioners (who are the original claimants), in valuing their claims. In this behalf, the learned Arbitrator, in his order dated 14.07.2017, referred to his earlier order dated 12.04.2017.

4. According to the learned Arbitrator, the claims are quantifiable. In this behalf, the learned Arbitrator has also adverted to the fact that the Coordinator of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (in short “DIAC”), apparently, was also of the same view.

5. This, in fact, is at the heart of the dispute obtaining between the parties before me. Therefore, in order to adjudicate upon the instant petition, the following broad facts are required to be noticed.

5.1 The petitioner had approached this Court via Arb. Petition No. 390/2012 for appointment of an Arbitrator. This petition was filed under Section 11(6) of the 1996 Act.

5.2 This Court recognizing the fact that a valid Collaboration Agreement dated 12.11.1981 (in short “C.A.”) obtained between the parties which, in turn in clause 24, incorporated the arbitration agreement proceeded to appoint an Arbitrator after the counsel for the respondent had indicated, inter alia, that the objections with regard to limitation and lack of cause of action would be raised in the arbitration proceeding. Resultantly, the Court appointed an Arbitrator and also directed that the arbitration proceedings will be held under the aegis of DIAC.

5.3 It may be relevant to note that at this stage, the C.A. was executed between, one, Dr. Karni Singh (predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners) and the respondent with regard to construction of a Multi Storied Building on the plot owned by Dr. Karni Singh, which is situate at 10 A, Prithviraj Road, New Delhi.

5.4 Thereafter, it appears, Dr. Karni Singh and the respondent entered into a Supplementary Agreement dated 10.06.1985 (in short “S.A.”), apparently, on account of the fact that the Government of India had directed construction of a Group Housing Complex (“subject complex”) on the aforementioned parcel of land.

5.5 The petitioners claim that under the S.A., it was agreed that their predecessor-in-interest i.e. Dr.