FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 378/2009 [Vincent Solomon Rocque vs. Secretary, Hislop Education Society, Nagpur.] ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or Directions Court's or Judge's Orders. And Registrar's Orders. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : S.R. DONGAONKAR J. DATED : JULY 27, 2009. Heard Shri Shantanu Ghate, Advocate, for the applicant and Shri Ukey, Advocate, for respondent. This is an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for appointment of an Arbitrator. The main objection of the learned counsel for the respondent to this application is that the applicant did not raise any objection, nor preferred any statement of claim, as required under Section 23 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for starting arbitration proceedings. He has referred to the alleged claim statement of the applicaant dated 20.8.2008 which was made before M/s. Rajiv & Moni Choudhary, Architects, C-13, Y.M.C.A., Sitabuldi, Nagpur, It seems that the applicant was to make a claim before this Architect. Learned counsel for the respondent, pointing out the relevant paragraph, has contended that the claim of the applicant was not specifically made and therefore, this application could not lie. The applicant has suggested the name of one Mr.Ram H. Daryani to be one of the arbitrator. On perusal of the alleged claim statement, no doubt, it appears that the specific claim statement has not been preferred by the applicant, but that fact by itself would not disentitle the applicant from preferring an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. 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. Hence, this application is allowed. Mr.Ram H. Daryani is appointed as one of the arbitrator. As per the arbitration agreement, the respondent would be at liberty to appoint any other arbitrator. After his appointment, these two arbitrators would appoint 3rd Arbitrator. Needless to mention that they would commence & complete the arbitration proceedings according to the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The arbitration proceedings shall be completed as early as possible in any case within a period of six months. Application disposed of. JUDGE Rvjalit