1 NM1740.11 kambli IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1740 OF 2011 IN ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO.101 OF 2011 AND NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1752 OF 2011 IN ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO.111 OF 2011 ... M/s.Lorven International Pvt.Ltd. ...Applicant v/s. The Chief Engineer (CE), MTNL and anr. ...Respondents ... Mr.Ramesh Ramamurthy for the Applicant. None for the Respondent. CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH, J. DATED: 8th July, 2011 P.C.: 1. These Notices of Motion are taken out by the Respondent for recall of the Order dated 28th April, 2011. By order dated 28th April, 2011 for the reasons mentioned in the Application the Arbitration Application No.101 of 2011 & Arbitration Application No.111 of 2011 were granted in terms of prayer clause (a) and Shri V.K.Chhada was appointed as Arbitrator. It is obvious from the order that the Respondent was not present. 2 NM1740.11 2. These Notices of Motion are taken out by the Respondent. Affidavit in support of the Notices of Motion is filed by one Shyam C. Moorzani, who described himself as Executive Engineer. He, in fact, is not a party to the petition. The Respondent in the petition is the Chief Engineer (Building Works). The Executive Engineer in his affidavit states that notice of that application was served on the Respondent No.1 on 7-4-2011 wherein it was stated that the matter will be before the Court on 8-4-2011. He then states “I say that as a result the Respondents due to administrative reason could not hire the counsel for defending the case. The applicant states that the Executive Engineer dealing with the matter was undergoing management training from 11-4-2011 to 19-4-2011 and was indisposed. The administrative reasons because of which the lawyer could not be engaged are not disclosed. If the notice was served on the Chief Engineer, how the Executive Engineer dealing with the matter becomes relevant is not disclosed. It is also not disclosed and clarified as to how the Executive Engineer can be undergoing management training from 11-4-2011 to 19-4-2011 when he is indisposed. Notice was served on the Chief Engineer. Therefore, it was for the Chief Engineer to explain why he himself could not remain present in court or he could engage a lawyer to 3 NM1740.11 represent himself in court. He has not given any explanation. Affidavit is filed by, as observed above, Executive Engineer, but the explanation given by him is totally meaningless. It is nowhere explained that why he did not make inquiry to find out what has happened to the matter on 8-4-2011, when the matter was still pending. The matter was disposed of on 28-4-2011. In any case what has been done by the order is that the substitute arbitrator has been appointed. Nobody has a right that the same person should be continued as arbitrator. No prejudice caused to the interest of the Respondent by substitution of the arbitrator is pointed out. Notices of motion are totally misconceived and meaningless. Both notices of motion are, therefore, rejected. (D.K.Deshmukh, J.)