Court No. - 59
Case :- ARBITRATION AND CONCILI. APPL.U/S11(4) No. - 136 of 2018 Applicant :- Rahul Paliwal Opposite Party :- V. K. Upadhyay Counsel for Applicant :- Vijay Mani Tiwari
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Service on the sole respondent was deemed sufficient by the last order. None has appeared on behalf of the respondent.
2. Heard Shri Vijay Mani Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant.
3. Present application has filed for appointment of an independent arbitrator under a written Addendum to agreement dated 07.02.2009. While, there exists an arbitration clause under clause 5 thereof, clearly, a named arbitrator had been specified thereunder.
4. Undisputedly, the said named arbitrator Shri Rakesh Sharma was appointed upon the disputes having arisen between the parties.
5. Thereafter, the applicant states that he had issued a notice to the respondent to terminate the mandate of the named arbitrator. That notice dated 04.10.2018 has been annexed with the present application. However, it is undisputed that the challenge procedure to question the mandate of the named arbitrator has not been adopted by the applicant.
6. Unless the mandate of the named arbitrator is shown to have terminated and further unless it is shown that the procedure to appoint substitute arbitrator had been adopted but no substitute aribtrator could be appointed by the parties, the application for appointment of an independent arbitrator made to this Court would remain not maintainable.
7. Accordingly, the present application is dismissed, leaving it open to the applicant to adopt all other courses as may be open to him in law.
Order Date :- 25.9.2019 AHA