DSC LIMITED v. THE UNION OF INDIA

1. The reply filed by the Respondent to the petitions under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('Act') seeking the appointment of an Arbitrator, inter alia, states that the Respondent has by an order dated 12^ March 2014 appointed Mr. S.K. Gupta, ChiefEngineer Arb. p. Nos. 71, 72, 73, 74 & 75 of2014 Page 2 of[4] (QS&C) as sole Arbitrator in terms of the arbitration clause in the contract between the parties. It is therefore, contended that the petitions have been rendered infhictuous.

2. Mr. Abhijat, learned counsel for the Petitioner opposes the above plea by pointing out that the appointment was made after the filing of the present petition. He submits that it is contrary to the previous order dated August 2013 passed by the Court in OMP No. 425 of2013 inasmuch as the Respondent was expected to appoint the Arbitrator within six months ofthe said order i.e. on or before February 2014.

3. Having considered the above submissions of the parties, the Court is of the view that the delay, if any, in appointing the Arbitrator by the Respondent is not such as to require the termination ofthe mandate ofthe said Arbitrator and to appoint another one in his place. Suffice it to say that the said Arbitrator will consider both the claims of the Petitioner and the counter claims ofthe Respondent in accordance with law.

4. It is clarified that no other question has been decided in the present petition.

5. Needless to reiterate that the order already passed by this Court on 1^^ August 2013 in the applications filed by the Petitioner under Section 9 of the Act will continue to operate till such time the learned Arbitrator takes Arb.P. Nos. 71, 72, 73, 74& 75of2014 Page 3 of[4] a view on the application, if any, filed under Section 17 ofthe Act.

6. The petitions are disposed of

7. Order dasti.