1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATOR NO.7 OF 2009. CIPLA LTD., a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, having its Registered Office at Mumbai Central, Mumbai 400 008. .......... Applicant. V/s. RELIANCE INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 having its Registered Office at Reliance Energy Center, Santa Cruz (East), Mumbai 400 055. ......... Respondent. Mr. Nitin Sardessai, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. M. S. Sonak, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM :- S.B. DESHMUKH & DATE :- 4 th September, 2009 . ORAL JUDGMENT : Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties. Rule, returnable forthwith. Mr. Sonak waives notice for the respondent. The 2 matter is heard finally by consent. 2. This Court has issued notice, returnable on 26.6.2009 to the sole respondent. Today, Advocate Mr. Sonak, on behalf of the respondent, has tendered an affidavit-in-reply. A copy is served to the learned Counsel appearing for the applicant. It is marked “A” for identification. Taken on record. 3. Advocate appearing for the applicant has pointed out clause No.8, titled as “ARBITRATION” from the agreement, which is on record. (page 20). The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner also referred to the communication addressed by the applicant to the respondent dated November 29, 2008. Para 4 of the communication makes a reference of appointment of Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.D. Kamat, Former Judge of the High Court of Bombay, as the sole Arbitrator. In view of clause 8 of the agreement, the respondent, vide its communication was called upon to appoint and/or nominate a nominee of their choice. Advocate Mr. Sonak, from the Affidavit para 3, has pointed out that His Lordship Mr. Justice E. Padmanabhan, Former Judge of Chennai High Court, has been appointed as an arbitrator on 3 behalf of the respondent. Both the learned Counsel agree that now the two Arbitrators appointed by them to appoint an Arbitrator who shall preside over the Tribunal for arbitration amongst the parties. Such a procedure is mentioned in clause (4) of the communication of the present applicant, addressed to the respondent, dated 29.11.2008. On this procedure, there is no dispute amongst the parties. 4. It has been conveyed to the Court that His Lordship Justice S.N. Variava, Former Judge of the Supreme Court of India, is appointed by both the nominees/arbitrators appointed by the applicant and the respondent, as the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal. The statement made by the Counsel, jointly, is accepted. Taken on record. In this view of the matter, nothing survives in this arbitration application and the arbitration application can be disposed of. 5. Learned Advocate Mr. Sonak submits that all the issues may be kept open to be decided by the Tribunal. Advocate for the applicant has no objection. Accordingly, all the issues to be tried by the Tribunal referred to in the foregoing paras of this Judgment, are kept open. The arbitration application, in this view of the matter is allowed 4 and disposed off. Rule made absolute in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs. S.B. DESHMUKH, J. ssm.