Hon’ble Rajan Roy, J.—This is an application under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (hereinafter referred as Act 1996') for appointment of a substitute arbitrator in terms of Section 15(2) of the Act 1996.

2. The facts in brief are that the parties herein had entered into a contract which contained an arbitration clause. This said arbitration clause reads as under:

^^¼13½ ;g fd bl i= esa i{kdkjksa esa ;fn dksbZ fookn mRiUu gksrk gS rks bldk fuokj.k e/;LFkksa ds )kjk fd;k tk;sxk tks fd Jh ch0ds0 nwcs o Jh nq";Ur dqekj jgsaxsA ;fn nksukas e/;LFk viuk iapkV vyx&vyx nsrs gSa rks i{kdkjksa dh lgefr ls ,d ,Eik;j fu;qDr fd;k tk;sxk ftldk fu.kZ; i{kdkjksa ij ck/;dkjh jgsxkA**

3. The arbitration clause provides for a named arbitrator. The named arbitrators failed to perform their functions entrusted to them under the Arbitration Clause, accordingly, an application was filed by the applicant herein under Section 11 (6) of the Act 1996, whereupon, this Court issued notice to the respondents herein and thereafter vide order dated 30th November 2011 appointed Justice A.N. Gupta (Retired) as an arbitrator in the matter. As luck would have it, Justice Gupta left for his heavenly abode while he was proceeding with the arbitration. In these circumstances the applicant has filed this application for appointment of a substitute arbitrator in terms of Section 15(2) of the Act 1996.

4. Sri Jaspreet Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent raised an objection that the application is not maintainable as the conditions mentioned in sub-section 3 and 4 of Section 11 are not satisfied and also as the eventualities mentioned in Clause (a), (b) and (c) of sub-section 6 thereby are also not satisfied.

5. As far as sub-section (3) and (4) are concerned, as the arbitration clause does not speak of three arbitrators, therefore, the same are not at all applicable and this contention is accordingly rejected.

6. As far as the other contention is concerned, Sri Jaspreet Singh tried to persuade the Court that even if the arbitrator appointed by the Court under Section 11(6) had died during arbitral proceedings an application for appointment of substitute arbitrator would not lie straight away before this Court under Section 11(6) unless either of the parties adopted the procedure for appointment of arbitrator as per the arbitration clause. He further contended that even in the case of named arbitrator the intent to refer the dispute to arbitration being evident from the existence of the arbitration clause, the appropriate course for the applicant was first to have given a notice to the respondents for appointing an arbitrator and only on satisfaction of either of the three eventualities mentioned in sub-section (6), such an application would lie before the Court. In this regard he placed heavy reliance upon the judgements of the Supreme Court in Yashwith Constructions (P) Ltd. v. Simplex Concrete Piles India Ltd., (2006) 6 SCC 204; National Highways Authority of India v. Bumihiway DDB Ltd. (JV), (2006) 10 763; ACC Ltd. v. Global Cements Ltd., (2012) 7 SCC 71; Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v. Sterlite Technologies Co. Ltd., (2016) 1 SCC 721; Shailesh Dhairyawan v. Mohan Balkrishna Lulla, (2016)3 SCC 619.

7. Sri Jaspreet Singh referred to the provisions of Section 15(2) to contend that the words used therein imply that the substitute arbitrator had to be appointed according to the Rules that were applicable to the appointment of the original arbitrator which in the present case meant the arbitration clause in the Agreement, however, he did not deny that the term ‘’Rules’ used therein would also include the provision contained in Section 11(6) of the Act 1996 and Rules made thereunder, under which arbitrator may be appointed by this Court.

8. Ms. Pushpila Bist, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, on the other hand, contended that there is no such requirement of approaching the respondents again before filing thi