IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA APPLN. FOR APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATOR NO. 11 OF 2009 SHARADCHANDRA SALKAR ... Applicant Versus NILESH SHETYE ... Respondent Mr. S. M. Singbal, Advocate for the applicant. Mr Pravin U. Naik, Advocate for the respondent. Coram:- NARESH H. PATIL, J. Date:- 15th January, 2010 P.C. Learned Counsel for the respondent raised preliminary objections, and submitted that there is non-compliance of Clause 2 (a), (b) and (h) of the Appointment of Arbitrators under the Chief Justice of India Scheme, 1996. The Counsel for the applicant, however, submits that the names and addresses of the parties are furnished, affidavit is also filed and that he would furnish a certified copy of the arbitration agreement on the next date. As such, there is satisfactory compliance of clause 2(b) and (h). 2. In respect of clause 2(a), the learned Counsel for the applicant brought to my notice a statement of the respondent at page 51 of the paper book wherein the respondent has produced a xerox copy of the agreement, which was taken on record on comparing with the original. The said objection is also waived. The applicant, however, during the course of hearing shall produce a certified copy of the arbitration agreement. 3. By this application, the applicant prays for appointment of an arbitrator. According to the learned Counsel for the applicant he had recommended a name of an arbitrator, but the respondent failed to recommend any name. Therefore, this application. 4. The Counsel for the applicant submits that in view of Section 11(4)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, an arbitrator be appointed by this Court. 5. In this view of the matter, Shri S. R. Rivonkar, Advocate having Office at Panaji, Goa is, hereby, appointed as an arbitrator. Registry to intimate the arbitrator to act accordingly. Application disposed of. NARESH H. PATIL, J. ssm.