D.N. Patel, J.

1. This application has been preferred under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for the appointment of arbitrator mainly for the reason that the arbitrators, who were the employees of the respondent Railways, was initially appointed on 13th October. 2004 and thereafter, they were transferred. Again in the year 2006. a fresh panel of arbitrators was constituted and again the arbitrators, viz. employees of the respondents, were transferred. Thereafter, due to similar reasons, again in the year 2007 a panel of arbitrators was appointed. This panel has also not decided the dispute. Again for the 4th time, in the year 2013 four names of the employees of the respondents were suggested to the applicants by the respondents for selection of the Contractors Nominees for constitution of the panel of arbitrators and the arbitration proceeding was not yet concluded therefore, due to this gross delay in conclusion of the arbitration proceeding, present application has been preferred for appointment of an Independent Arbitrator. The claim of this applicant is of approximately 1.5 crores plus interest.

2. Counsel for the applicant has submitted that there is gross delay on the part of the respondents and the arbitrators who are the employees of the respondents and even after lapse of nine years since the dispute has started, viz. year 2004 arbitration proceeding was not concluded till the year 2013. The arbitrators are either transferred frequently or they retired.

Hence, on the basis of the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Singh Builders Syndicate, (2009) 4 SCC 523 and Union of India and Others vs. Uttar Pradesh State Bridge Corporation Limited, (2015) 2 SCC 52, it has been submitted by the counsel for the applicant that this court has all power, jurisdiction and authority to appoint any Hon'ble retired judge of this court as the Arbitrator so that the dispute is resolved at the earliest.

3. Counsel for the applicant has also taken this court to various annexures. It has been pointed out from Annexure-3 onwards to the memo of this application that time and again the employees of the respondents are retiring and arbitration has yet not been concluded. Every now and then a fresh panel is formed and again the matter is kept pending.

Annexure-8 to this Arbitration Application is the Letter dated 7th December, 2008 written by this applicant to the respondents, in which these facts have been highlighted. Therefore, it appears that even after these facts have been pointed out by this applicant, the respondents kept on appointing such officers as arbitrators, who are frequently transferred or getting retired.

Hence, this court has all power, jurisdiction and authority to appoint a retired Hon'ble Judge of this court as an Arbitrator.

4. Counsel for the respondents submitted that the fault lies on the part of this applicant, who is reluctant to give consent with respect to the name of the arbitrators, as stated in the counter affidavit, especially at Paragraph Nos. 4 and 7.

Counsel appearing for respondents has also relied upon the following decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court:-

(a) Yashwith Constructions (P) Ltd. vs. Simplex Concrete Piles India Ltd. and Another, (2006) 6 SCC 204.

(b) Union of India and Another vs. Premco-DKSPL (JV) and Others, 2016 (4) JCR 60 (SC).

On the basis of the aforesaid decisions, it is submitted by the counsel for the respondents that a new panel of employees of has already been appointed as arbitrators and they are the arbitrators fit for resolution of the dispute between the parties to the agreement and hence, there is no need of appointing any other arbitrator.

REASONS:

5. Having heard counsel appearing for both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case it appears that in pursuance of an agreement between the parties to this arbitration application dispute was raised by this applicant for the payment of bills for the wo