Arb. Case No. 56 of 2009 15.3.2010 Present: Mr. Neel Kamal Sood, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.K. Thakur, Advocate for the respondent. Heard and gone through the record. Parties entered into an agreement, under which Himachal Road Transport Corporation hired the buses of the present petitioner. Agreement was reduced into writing. Its copy is Annexure C-1. Agreement contains an arbitration clause. According to the arbitration clause, Managing Director of H.R.T.C. is to act as Arbitrator, in case any dispute arises between the parties, with regard to the implementation of the agreement, in question. According to the petitioner, a dispute arose and he approached the Managing Director, the named Arbitrator, to enter upon arbitration. Notice was sent on 17.6.2009. Arbitrator having taken no action, present petition was filed, under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since Arbitrator did not enter upon arbitration, within 30 days of the service of notice, sent to him on 17.6.2009, petitioner was left with no alternative, but to approach Hon’ble the Chief Justice or the Judge designated by him for appointment of another Arbitrator. In support of his submission that the Arbitrator was supposed to have entered upon arbitration, within 30 days of the service of notice, he places reliance upon sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. - 2 - Arb.Case 56/2009 Submission is misconceived. The aforesaid provisions prescribe limitation for the opposite party or where the other party to the agreement fails to respond within thirty days of the demand by the party, seeking appointment of an Arbitrator. The provisions do not come into play, where the Arbitrator, named in Arbitration clause, is approached by a party according to which a dispute has arisen, but the Arbitrator delays action on the request. In the present case, it has been brought to my notice from the record of the respondent that the named Arbitrator has, in fact, taken cognizance of the notice dated 17.6.2009 of the petitioner and entered upon arbitration. He issued notice on 5.11.2009 to the petitioner, asking him to attend his office on 11.11.2009. In view of the fact that the named Arbitrator has entered upon arbitration and has started the process of adjudicating the alleged dispute, present petition is dismissed as infructuous. Arbitrator is directed to issue fresh notices to the parties and adjudicate the dispute expeditiously. March 15, 2010(ss) (Surjit Singh), J