1 S.B. Arbitration Application No.29/2008 M/s. Vinayak Containers vs Chief Manager Director RCDF & Ors. DATE OF ORDER: 19.5.2009 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr. SN Trivedi, for the petitioner. Mr. Pushpendra Singh, for the respondents. <><><> Heard learned counsel for the parties. There is dispute between the parties and for that purpose the petitioner submitted his request for appointing arbitrator after raising claim vide letter dated 25th March, 2008. The condition no.43 clearly provides that Managing Director of the respondent shall be the sole arbitrator. Insptie of the aforesaid condition, the petitioner in his letter dated 25th March, 2008 prayed that any other person other than the Managing Director of the Diary be appointed as arbitrator. The said request (notice) of the petitioner was replied by the respondents on 9th April, 2008 wherein after disputing the claim of the petitioner, it has been said that both the parties are bound by the agreement and,therefore, the petitioner should also accept the conditions mentioned in the contract. It appears that in view of the petitioner's request for appointing any other arbitrator other 2 than the Managing Director of the respondent-dairy, the respondent did not appoint the arbitrator. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Managing Director of the diary concerned is the person concerned and he will not be in position to act fairly and petitioner will not be able to get justice from the Managing Director of respondent -diary who is the solemn incharge of the respondent's affairs. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the dispute has remained because of the reason that petitioner himself requested for not appointing the Managing Director of the respondent – dairy as sole arbitrator and the petitioner could not have avoided the condition mentioned in the arbitration clause with the prayer for relief on the basis of same clause. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is not disputed by either of the parties that there is clause of arbitration in the contract providing that the matter be referred to the sole arbitrator and the arbitrator shall be the Managing Director of the respondent-diary. The petitioner who has signed the contract knowing it well with open eyes cannot avoid to have appointed Managing Director as arbitrator on the ground that he will not act fairly. In view of the above, this application for arbitration is 3 partly allowed and the Managing Director of the respondent – diary is appointed as arbitrator who shall decide the dispute in accordance with law. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. c.p.goyal/-