1 ssm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 185 OF 2009 Pritish Nandy Communication Limited ...Petitioner. Vs. Prasar Bharati (Broadcasting Corp. of India) ...Respondents. Mr. Anil Menon i/by M/s. Anil Menon & Associates for the Petitioners. Ms. Anisha Shroff i/by Mr. Anil Agarwal for the Respondents. CORAM :- ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATED :- 18TH JUNE, 2009. P.C.- 1. The Petitioner has initially moved this Application under Section 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, “the Act”) as the Arbitrator appointed under Section 11 of the Act, expired, and therefore, submitted to substitute / appoint new Arbitrator. 2. The Petitioner has, in fact suggested 3 names in the Petition itself. Though time was granted, till this date, Respondents have not given consent to the name suggested. On the last occasion also 3 more names are suggested by the Petitioner. The Respondents also suggested 2 names, however, it appears that the parties are not in a position to give consent 2 and or not agreed to a particular name/ Arbitrator to be appointed /substituted. 3. In view of this, and also for the reason that the Arbitration is pending since 2001, the Respondents’ witness was under cross-examination and therefore, it is desirable that there should be no further delay in the matter, as it would cause frustrate to whole purpose of the Arbitration. In my view, in such circumstances, the liberty is granted to the Petitioner to move application under Section 11 of the Act for appointment of Arbitrator substitute / new Arbitrator. 4. Resultantly, the Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)