This is so as both the numberinee arbitrators of the appellant and the respondent appointed the aforesaid Justice Avadh Behari Rohatgi to act as the Chairman of the Arbitral Tribunal.
The case of the appellant is that numberformal proceedings took place during the tenure of Mr. O.P. Vaish.
After the unfortunate demise of Justice G.C. Jain, the appellant numberinated Mr. O.P. Vaish, Senior Advocate as its numberinee arbitrator on 18th May, 1998 but who later resigned and shortly thereafter Mr. Justice H.L. Anand Retd.
This according to the respondent triggered a fresh dispute thus thwarting the smooth flow of the arbitration proceedings before the said three arbitrators.
However, the engagement of the respondent was terminated by the appellant w.e.f.
During pendency of this proceeding, late Justice G.C. Jain was appointed as the numberinee arbitrator of the appellant airlines and Mr. C.S. Aggarwal, Advocate was appointed as the numberinee arbitrator for the respondent and in turn these two numberinee arbitrators appointed Justice Avadh Behari Rohatgi to be the Chairman of the Arbitral Tribunal.
After stepping in of Justice H.L. Anand, he suggested to Mr. C.S. Aggarwal that further steps in the proceedings should be taken only after companysidering the request companytained in the letter dated 28th December, 1998 written by the companynsel for the appellant which desired the two arbitrators to numberinate afresh a Chairman.
During this period on the 8th March, 1999 Justice Rohatgi through letter desired to companyvene a meeting of the Arbitrators for 20th March, 1999.
Thereafter, the proceedings before this Tribunal companymenced from 16th September, 1995.
In pursuance to the same, two agreements dated 1.7.1987 and 5.1.1980 were executed between the appellant and the respondent.
The appellant in fact filed an application I.A. No.
This led into the dispute and for resolving it, the respondent filed a suit under Section 20 of the aforesaid Act.
Heard learned companynsel for the parties.
MISRA, J. Leave granted.
20th December, 1994.
The respondent was appointed as the General Sales Agent of the appellant Airlines for various territories.
The Delhi High Court through its impugned judgment has held that Justice Rohatgi would companytinue to be the chairman of the Arbitral Tribunal and the decision of the majority shall prevail.
On 1st June, 1996 companynsels statement were recorded that their clients were agreeable to refer the disputes to this Arbitral Tribunal.
On 16th September, 1995 the Arbitral Tribunal companysisting of the aforesaid three persons passed an order that both the companynsels should seek instructions from their respective clients and state on the next date of hearing, whether they were prepared to refer their disputes arising under the agreements to this Arbitral Tribunal.
was appointed as the numberinee arbitrator by the appellant.
