JUDGMENT :

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1. A Petition under Section 14(1) (a) and 15(2) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), 1996 has been filed by the petitioner for appointment of an Arbitrator.

2. It is submitted that the petitioner is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The Government of India initiated a research and development programme namely "New Millennium Indian Technology Leadership Initiative” (NMITLI) in public - private partnership mode in 2000-2001. The responsibility of conceptualizing, evolving and implementing the program was assigned to the Petitioner. The scheme envisaged synergistic networking of publicly funded institutions, academia and private industry. The Petitioner received various proposals from different entities who wanted to collaborate under the NMITLI. The proposal submitted by the Respondent for the "development of chipset for wireless sensor networks based on ultra-wide band technology" (hereinafter referred to as "Project") was admitted by the petitioner who agreed to provide financial support to the Respondent in the form of a soft loan in a sum of Rs. 4,60,00,000/- for the purpose of development of the Project. An Agreement dated 07th March, 2007 was accordingly, entered into between the parties. The loan amounts were disbursed from time to time and a total sum of Rs.1,08,89,000/- was utilized and a sum of Rs.19,78,000/- was unutilized and was in possession of the petitioner.

3. In terms of Agreement, the first installment for repayment of loan amount was to be made on 01st August, 2010 and the entire loan amount was payable in ten equal installments, last being payable on 01st August, 2019. The respondent failed to make the repayments of loan despite repeated reminders by the petitioner and it acted in complete breach of the Agreement. According to Clause 2.6 of the Agreement, default in payment of two successive installments by the respondent entitled the petitioner to recall the entire loan amount.

4. A Legal Notice dated 20th December, 2013 was therefore issued by the petitioner, where the respondent was requested to repay the entire loan amount within fifteen days, failing which the matter would be referred to Arbitration in terms of Clause 15 of the Agreement. Since, no response was received by the petitioner to the Legal Notice, it was constrained to refer the matter to Arbitration.

5. In terms of Clause 15 of the Agreement, the Monitoring Committee comprising of three members, was to act as the Arbitral Tribunal. In furtherance of the same, the letters dated 21st February, 2014 and 26th May, 2014 were sent to the three members of the Monitoring Committee. Prof. S.C. Sahasrabudhe and Dr. V.S. Ramamurthy gave confirmation vide letters of acceptance dated 05th March, 2014 and 30th April, 2014 respectively. Prof. V.U. Reddy gave his confirmation vide email dated 26th May, 2014. After the nomination was accepted by the Monitoring Committee, the Arbitral Tribunal was formed in May, 2014 consisting of aforementioned three arbitrators.

6. The presiding arbitrator suggested that the arbitration proceedings may be commenced at Delhi and confirmed the venue as Delhi vide his letter dated 28th May, 2018. The arbitration was to be held in Delhi. However, Prof. V.U. Reddy vide his email dated 29th May, 2018 expressed his inability to attend the proceedings in Delhi. No response was received from Prof. S.C. Sahasrabudhe. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the Monitoring Committee is de facto unable to perform its functions as Arbitral Tribunal. Hence, a prayer is made for appointment of the Sole Arbitrator for adjudication of the disputes between the parties.

7. The respondent in its reply took a preliminary objection that the petition is hopelessly time barred. As per the petitioner itself the dispute arose between them in 2010 when the respondent failed to repay the first installment of loan. Even though this fact is denied but ass