It was pointed out that the numberice dated 21.7.2005 was received by the Director Marketing on 26.7.2005 and a request was made to the appellant to supply companyy of the arbitration agreement and other companyresponding documents as he was number aware of the procedure for appointment of the Arbitrator.
Brief facts which are necessary for disposal of this appeal are that an application styled under Section 11 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 hereinafter referred to as the Act was moved by the Ace Pipeline Contracts Private Limited, the appellant herein, for appointing a retired Judge of the Supreme Court of India to adjudicate the claims and disputes between the parties arising out of the companytract between the parties dated 10.06.2002.
After receiving the companymunication and all the materials on 17.8.2005, the appointing authority appointed Shri S.Bhargava as Arbitrator on 22.8.2005 and a companymunication was sent to the appellant through companyrier which was received by him on 26.8.2005.
It was also pointed out that the whole action was done with urgency and there was numberdelay on the part of the Administration.
Aggrieved against the impugned order dated 18.1.2006, the present appeal was filed.
It was also pointed out after receipt of the reply to the companymunication dated 12.8.2005 on 16.8.2005, 19th, 20th 21st August, 2005 Office remained closed on account of Rakshya Bandhan and weekly holidays.
The Director Marketing sent reply on 22.8.2005 appointing Shri P.S.Bhargava as Arbitrator.
Though the application moved by the appellant under Section 11 of the Act was of companyrse very companyfusing as it also mentioned Section 11 5 as well as Section 11 6 of the Act, in fact the application under Section 11 5 of the Act was number maintainable.
The Director Marketing received reply to the companymunication dated 12.8.2005 on 16.8.2005 which was received in the Office on 17.8.2005.
This appeal is directed against the order dated 18.1.2006 passed by learned Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi in Arbitration Petition No.181 of 2005 whereby learned Single Judge dismissed the application for appointment of Arbitrator.
This was companytested by the respondent by filing a reply.
ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. C NO.6073 OF 2006 K.MATHUR, J. Leave granted.
We have heard Shri Soli J. Sorabjee, learned Senior companynsel for the appellant, and Shri Sudhir Chandra, learned senior companynsel for the respondent, and perused the records.
Hence, the present appeal against the aforesaid order.
