JUDGMENT :

RAJAN ROY, J.

1. Heard.

2. This is an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (hereinafter referred as ‘Act 1996’) for appointment of an Arbitrator.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has invited attention of the court to the Arbitration Clause contained in Clause 32-C of the Agreement, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure-2 to the application.

4. The fact of the matter is that prior to filing of this application the Housing Commissioner has appointed a retired District Judge as Arbitrator to resolve the dispute.

5. Contention of the applicants counsel in this regard is that the Housing Commissioner being ineligible to himself act as Arbitrator in the matter is also ineligible to appoint any Arbitrator in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Perkins Eastman Architects DPC vs. HSCC (India) Ltd. AIR 2020 SC 59. In this regard he contends that the arbitration clause in this case is similar to the arbitration clause in the said case and based on this he relies upon Paras 15 and 16 of the said judgment. He also relies upon a Three Judge Bench decision of the Supreme Court in case of TRF Ltd. vs. Energo Engineeri