IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA REQ. CASE No.25 of 2008 M/S CHUNNU SINGH through its Proprietor Chunnu Singh son of late Jay Kumar Singh resident of Mohalla -NY/ 148-D New Yarpur Janta Road, Devi Asthan P.S.Gardanibagh Dist. Patna Petitioner Versus 1. THE CHAIRMAN CUM-MANAGING.DIRECTOR,BHARTI AIRTEL LTD/ (Now Bhati Intra Tel Ltd), UNITECH World Cyber Park, Tower –A, 4th Floor, Sector 39, Gurgaon, Delhi 2. The DGM cum SCM Bharti, Airtel Ltd (Now Bharti Infratel Ltd) 5th Floor, Saday Bhawan, Frazer Road, Patna ----------- 06 26.03.2009 Heard learned counsel for the parties. This petition has been filed by the petitioner- M/s Chunnu Singh for appointment of Arbitrator so that dispute between the parties may be amicably redressed. It transpires that the petitioner entered into two agreements with respondent no.2 dated 30.07.2007 and 01.10.2007; one a service agreement and other a service provider agreement. It is also claimed by the petitioner that although the petitioner fulfilled contractual obligations without any laches respondent no.2 deducted substantial amount as penalty against “Outrage of Sites”. Hence the petitioner gave registered notice to respondent no.2 for appointment of an independent and impartial Arbitrator on 01.08.2008 (Annexure 2), but in spite of that respondent no.2 failed to appoint any Arbitrator within the stipulated period i.e. thirty days and hence the petitioner was constrained to file this petition on 11.09.2008 where after notices were sent to respondents vide order dated 14.11.2008. Learned counsel for respondents submits that in view of said notice sent by the petitioner, respondents had appointed an Arbitrator vide order dated 11.12.12008 and hence there is no - 2 - necessity for appointment of any Arbitrator by this court. However, from the facts and circumstances of the case, it transpires that although notice dated 01.08.2008 was admittedly served upon respondents but they failed to discharge their obligation within thirty days as prescribed in law and hence the petitioner was constrained to file this case on 11.09.2008. It further transpires that only after coming to know about the instant case, Arbitrator has been appointed in a hurried manner only to get this case dismissed. Hence due to the attitude and malafide conduct of the respondents, this petition is allowed and appointment the Arbitrator by the respondents on 11.12.2008 being frivolous and with ulterior motive is set aside. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and in view of the respective claims of the parties, Mr N.C. Lala, District Judge (retired) is appointed as Arbitrator for deciding the dispute between the parties. Let a copy of this order be produced before the said learned retired District Judge within one month and within that time both the parties may approach him at his address so that date may be fixed for the proceeding. The said learned District Judge will be entitled to fix his remuneration and office expenses where after, if possible the matter may be disposed of as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months. With the aforesaid directions, this request case is disposed of. shahid (S.N.Hussain, J)