1 ssm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 14 OF 2009 M/s. Raghuleela Realtors Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioners. Vs. Virendra Kumar Gupta & Anr. ...Respondents. Mr. D.H.Mehta with Mr. K.H. Mody i/by M/s. S. Pathak & Co. for the Petitioners. None for the Respondents. CORAM :- ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATED :- 22ND JUNE, 2009. P.C.- 1. None appeared for the Respondents, though served twice. An affidavit of service is taken on record. There is no denial to the fact that the Arbitrator appointed has resigned and therefore, this Petition for appointment/ substitution of a new Arbitrator. It is averred that the earlier arbitrator has resigned in view of the letter dated 12th June, 2008. The contents are as under: “With reference to your letter dated 10th June, 2008. I am to state that the date was deliberately written as 26th April, 2008 on the covering letter in order to show that such things do happen and have thereby directly supported the claimants and confirms that you are biased against me. 2 Please also change the meeting from October to November 2008 any time from 10.00 A.M. to 5.00 P.M. At the Mediation Room of Mumbai High Court. This is necessary because I have threat to my life from the complainants, their advocate & their hired goons.” 2. The learned Arbitrator in view of this itself, resigned on 16th June, 2008. Such allegations of bias without any reason and supporting material is quite disturbing. It frustrate the whole purpose and object of the Arbitration, as it affect the image of a fair, frank, noble, impartial, honest and uncontroversial and respected retired Judge of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. She was appointed as the sole arbitrator by the consent of the parties by the Hon’ble High Court. The aspersion on such flimsy grounds, is uncalled for and deprecated. 3. As the Arbitrator has, in view of above background, has resigned and therefore, without going further into the merit and as there is no denial to the averments made in the Petition and even otherwise considering the aspersion on such flimsy grounds, I am inclined to grant the Petition in terms of prayer clause (b). 4. So far as the prayer clause (a) is concerned as the Respondent though served, not co-operating and in fact not participating in this proceeding and as an arbitrator needs to be appointed by the consent of the parties and as to avoid further delay in the matter, I am inclined to dispose this Petition with liberty to the Petitioner to move Petition under 3 Section 11 of the Arbitration Act for appointment/ substitution of a new Arbitrator. 5. In view of this, the Arbitration Petition is disposed of in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). However it is made clear that the interim order so granted by an order dated 16th April, 2009 in paragraph No.4 in following terms, “4. The interim protection as granted and recorded in the order dated 19.12.2007 in earlier Arbitration Petition No. 278/07 between the same parties, to continue till then.” shall continue till the appointment of the new Arbitrator and four weeks thereafter. 6. The Petition is accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)