tL IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ARB.P. 168/2008 STATE TRADING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. #11 ..... Petitioner Through Mr. R.K. Anand with Mr. S.B. Sharma, Advocates. versus METRO MACHINERY TRADERS & OTHERS ..... Respondent Through Mr. Aman Vachher, Advocate for R-2, 4,6,7,8. Mr. M.S. Mishra, Advocate for R-5 & 6. Mr. Yakesh Anand and Mr. P. Kumar, Advocate for R-9. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ORDER o 29.05.2009 I I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. The letter dated 12th July, 2006 of the petitioner addressed to the ICA interalia reads as follows : "Since the amount of the claim is more than Rs.1 crore, under the ICA Rules the Arbitration shall be conducted by the three arbitrators - one to be nominated by the claimant, another the Respondent No. I and the third arbitrator may be nominated and appointed by the Indian Council of Arbitration. However, since in the Arbitration clause, it has been mentioned that the disputes shall be referred to a sole Arbitrator to be nominated and appointed by Indian Council of Arbitration, I shall be grateful if you kindly nominate and appoint a Retired Chief Justice of India as the amount of claim is very heavy." In pursuance of the above letter Shri Y.K. Sabharwal, Retd. Chief Justice of India, was appointed as the sole arbitrator on 10.5.2007. The proceedings commenced before the arbitrator on 17.7.2007 and certain orders have also been passed. No objection was taken to the appointment of the arbitrator. Now for the first time, by filing this petition under Section ll(5) it is sought to be contended that the appointment of arbitrator was Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified It t1 -- ff contrary to the rules inasmuch as the ICA Rules contemplate appointment of three arbitrators if the claim is above one crore. The contention is devoid of any merit as the sole arbitrator was appointed on the request of the petitioner itself. I find no reason to entertain this petition. The petition is dismissed with costs. ^ gYaln d'./ CHIEF JUSTICE MAY 29,2009 dk f' t