IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA APPLN. FOR APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATOR NO. 10 OF 2010 M/S KANISHKA SALVAGE AND UNDERWATER SERVICES PVT. LTD. THROUGH THEIR DIRECTOR MR. GOPAL S. GONAL ... Applicant Versus M/S SYNDICATE SHIPWRIGHT A PARTNERSHIP FIRM THROUGH ITS PARTNER MR. VIPAN MALHOTRA ... Respondent Mr. J. F. Mello, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. E. O. Mendes, Advocate for the respondent. Coram:- D. G. KARNIK, J. Date:- 21st October, 2010 P.C.:- (1) By this application, the applicant prays for appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short "the Arbitration Act"). By filing an affidavit-in-reply, the respondent has opposed the application. (2) The applicant and the respondent entered into a salvage agreement on 29th May, 2008, a copy of which is filed at Annexure A-2. Clause 14 of the agreement reads : " In case of any dispute, the same shall be referred to arbitration in accordance with the provisions with Indian Arbitration Act 1996, in Goa, India. The arbitrators shall be knowledgeable persons with knowledge of Maritime matters." (3) The Counsel for the respondent does not dispute the agreement, nor does he dispute the existence of the arbitration clause in the agreement. He, however, submits that the reference to the arbitral tribunal should be to the plurality of the arbitrators-one to be appointed by each party and the umpire to be appointed by the two arbitrators. I am unable to agree for the following reasons. (4) Section 10 of the Arbitration Act reads thus : " 10. Number of arbitrators.-(1) The parties are free to determine the number of arbitrators, provided that such number shall not be an even number. (2) Failing the determination referred to in sub-section (1), the arbitral tribunal shall consist of a sole arbitrator." (5) Sub-section (1) of Section 10 gives liberty to the parties to determine the number of arbitrators that would consist the arbitral tribunal, with one condition that such number shall not be an even number. Sub-section (2) provides that failing the determination as to the number of arbitrators, the arbitral tribunal shall consist of a sole arbitrator. Though clause 14 of the agreement prima facie contemplates arbitral tribunal of plurality of arbitrators, it does not provide how many arbitrators would constitute the arbitral. There is no agreement between the parties as to what should be the strength of the arbitral tribunal. Clause 14 does not contemplate that the arbitral tribunal shall be consisting of only 3 arbitrators. Therefore, it must be said that there is no agreement between the parties as to the number of arbitrators who shall constitute the arbitral tribunal. Consequently, clause (2) of Section 10 of the Arbitration Act would be applicable and the arbitral tribunal would be of a sole arbitrator. (6) I have perused the notice of arbitration which shows that the total claim is little over Rs.15.00 lakhs. Considering the nature and the extent of the claim, it would be appropriate to appoint an arbitral tribunal of a sole arbitrator particularly in view of the provisions of Section 10(2) of the Arbitration Act. (7) Hence, I appoint Shri G. D. Kamat, former Judge of this Court and former Chief Justice of Gujarat High Court, to be the sole arbitrator. Application disposed of. D. G. KARNIK, J. ssm.