Mr. Mehta fixed the meeting on 13 July, 1968 and decided to proceed with the arbitration and adjourned the meeting to 20 July, 1968.
In this companytext of events the appellants filed applications under section 33 of the Arbitration Act which resulted in the order appealed against.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated October 17, 1968 of the Bombay High Court in Arbitration Petitions Nos.
49 and 50 of 1968.
The appellants obtained an adjournment on the ground that the appellants wanted to file a petition challenging the appointment of Mr. Mehta as an umpire.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
The appellants by letter dated 12 July, 1968 addressed to Mr. Mehta companytended that the companysent of the umpire was number obtained before his appointment and therefore there was numbervalid appointment of the umpire.
N. Shroff, for the appellant in C.A. No.
2441 and 2442 of 1968.
V. Gupte, B. R. Agarwala for the respondent in both the appeals .
The Judgment of the Court was delivered to Ray, J. These two appeals are by special leave against I the judgment dated 17 October, 1968 of the High Court at Bombay determining under section 33 of the Arbitration Act that the umpire rightly entered upon the reference and further extending the time till 31 December, 1968 for making an award thereof by the umpire.
2441/1968 .
M. Tarkunde and I. N. Shroff, for the appellant in As.
The appellants raised certain objections.
Mr. Mehta adjourned the matter till 30 July, 1968.
The meeting was adjourned.
Mr. Mehta fixed a meeting on 27 May, 1968.
Thereafter, the respondents through their solicitors called upon the arbitrators to refer the matter to the umpire and also by a separate letter called upon the umpire Mr. Porus A. Mehta to enter on the reference as umpire appointed by the arbitrators.
2442 of 1968 .
At the meeting held on 17th June, 1968 Mr. Mehta gave certain directions in regard to the proceedings and instructions thereof and fixed 12 July, 1968 for hearing.
The appellants did number companyply with the request and on 6 March, 1968 wrote to the arbitrators that Mr. Advani one of the arbitrators would be biased in favour of the respondents.
Another meeting was fixed on 17 June, 1968.
