JUDGMENT

Rajiv Shakdher, J. (Oral)--This is a petition filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Notice in this petition was issued on 23.08.2018. On that date Mr. Puneet Taneja, Advocate entered appearance on behalf of respondent No.1/NTPC Ltd.

2. On return of notice, i.e. today, Mr. Udit Seth enters appearance on behalf of respondent No.2/RITES.

2.1. The only contention of Mr. Seth is that since the Arbitrator has already been appointed by respondent No.2/RITES under the arbitration agreement obtaining between the parties, this petition would not lie. According to Mr. Seth, respondent No.2/RITES had appointed the Arbitrator on 09.08.2018.

2.2. This submission of Mr. Seth was premised on the impression that he carried that the instant petition was filed on 20.08.2018. The record of this Court, however, shows that the captioned petition was filed on 16.07.2018 i.e. prior to respondent No.2/RITES appointing an Arbitrator in the matter.

2.3. Faced with this situation, Mr. Seth says that he cannot argue that given the position in law, as articulated in a judgment of the Supreme Court in Datar Switchgears Ltd. Vs. TATA Finance Ltd. and Another, (2000) 8