Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996—Section 15(2) and Section 11(6)—In the present case, the arbitrator appointed by respondent No.1, namely, Shri S.N. Huddar declined to accept the appointment/arbitrate in the matter on the ground that in his capacity as Superintending Engineer and Chief Engineer, he was associated with Koyna Hydel Project implying thereby that he may not be able to objectively examine the claims of the parties or the other party may question his impartiality—To put it differently, Shri S.N. Huddar did not enter upon the arbitration—Therefore, there was no question of his withdrawing from the office of arbitrator so as to enable respondent No.1 to appoint a substitute arbitrator—In any case, in the absence of a clear stipulation to that effect in the agreements, respondent No.1 could not have appointed a substitute arbitrator and the learned designated Judge gravely erred in appointing the third arbitrator by presuming that the appointment of Shri S.L. Jain was in accordance with law—Respondent No.1 cannot draw support from the ratio of the judgment in Yashwith Constructions (P) Ltd. v. Simplex Concrete Piles India Ltd. [(2006) 6 SCC 204].