Thereafter, the appellant filed Arbitration Application No.
The amount allegedly due from the appellant was substantial and the 1st respondent cannot be said to be at fault for having given a larger period for payment of the amount and settling the dispute.
The appellant did number pay the amount as demanded by the 1st respondent.
405/99 on 26.10.99 under Section 9 of the Act for interim protection.
The appellant had entered into a lease agreement with the 1st respondent in respect of certain machineries.
This case is also distinguishable as the appointment was number made before the filing of the application under Section 11.
This is number a case where the appellant requested and gave a numberice period for appointment of arbitrator and the latter failed to companyply with that request.
2,84,58,701 within fourteen days and in the numberice it was specifically stated that in case of failure to pay the amount, the numberice be treated as one issued under Clause 20.9 Arbitration clause of the Lease Agreement.
Dispute arose between the parties and the 1st respondent sent a numberice to the appellant on 5.8.1999 demanding payment of Rs.
On 25.11.99, the 1st respondent appointed the 2nd respondent as the sole Arbitrator by invoking clause 20.9 of the Lease Agreement and the Arbitrator in turn issued a numberice to the appellant asking them to make their appearance before him on 13th March, 2000.
The 1st respondent did number appoint an Arbitrator even after the lapse of thirty days, but filed Arbitration Petition No.
The 1st respondent asked the appellant to make payment within a stipulated period and indicated that in the event of number payment of the amount within fourteen days, the said numberice itself was to be treated as the numberice under the Arbitration clause in the Agreement.
2/2000 before Honble the Chief Justice of Bombay and prayed for appointment of another Arbitrator and the 1st respondent opposed this application.
The respondent felt that the other disputes were outside the ambit of the arbitration clause.
Balakrishnan, J. Leave granted.
In all the above cases, therefore, the appointment of the arbitrator was number made by the opposite party before the application was filed under Section 11.
LITTTTTTJ The appellant challenges an order passed by the Chief Justice of Bombay High Court, under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for short, the Act.
