1 I N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR MCA 159 of10 (in MCA 378/09) Vincent Solomon Rocque v. Secretary, Hislop Cololege Edn.Socy., Ngp. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's and Registrar's orders orders ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. S.S. Ghate Advocate for the applicant. Mr.Ukey Advocate for the Respondent. ….. CORAM: S.A. BOBDE , J. DATED : 9 th JULY, _2010. Heard. On 27.7.2009 this Court passed an order appointing two arbitrators- one suggested by each side, who were to appoint the third arbitrator. This was in pursuance of clause 15 of the agreement, which reads as follows - “The Arbitrator should be a Fellow of Indian Institute of Architects to be agreed upon by both parties or in case of disagreement Three Arbitrators, all being fellows of Institute of Architects, one to be 2 appointed by each party and third appointed by Architect. The award of the arbitrator or arbitrators shall be final and binding on both the parties.” In the said order dated 27.7.2009 appointing two arbitrators, this Court has observed as follows : “As regards specific appointment suggested by the applicant, there is no objection from the respondent's side. However, he claims that as per the arbitration agreement, he can appoint one arbitrator and thereafter those two arbitrators would appoint 3rd arbitrator.” Mr.Ghate, learned counsel for the review- applicant submits that there was no objection from the respondent's side to the specific name suggested by the applicant and therefore the respondent could not have suggested the name of another arbitrator, thus paving way for appointment of third arbitrator. It is not possible to accept this contention since the clause referred to above states that in case of disagreement three arbitrators one to be appointed by each party and the third to be appointed by the Architect may be appointed. The disagreement contemplated by the clause may be in regard to the name suggested by one of the parties or in regard to the fact that there should be only one arbitrator. It is thus obvious that the respondent had not agreed to the appointment of a single arbitrator and had suggested the name of another arbitrator from their side. 3 In the circumstances, there is no error in the order. Review application is dismissed. The Arbitrator shall decide the matter within a period of six months from today. JUDGE /TA/