JUDGMENT
M.K. Sharma, J.
(1) This is a petition under Section 20(4) of the Arbitration Act, filed by the petitioner praying for appointment of an independent Arbitrator for adjudication of the dispute/claims of the petitioner in view of the fact that the Appointing Authority has forfeited its authority to appoint an Arbitrator.
(2) The petitioner submitted his tender for certain construction work with the respondents and an agreement was executed between the parties with regard to the subject work.
(3) In relation to the aforesaid contract work, disputes arose between the parties in respect of which the petitioner sought for an arbitration on 25th June, 1992. However, since no Arbitrator was appointed by the respondents, the petitioner approached this Court with a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act which was registered as Suit No. 1082-A/1994.
(4) This Court after hearing the parties passed an order on 14.12.1995 directing the respondent to file the Agreement in Court and also directed the Assistant General Manager, Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking to appoint an Arbitrator within six week of the order for deciding the claims which have been set out in paragraph 10 of the petition. It was also observed therein that if the respondent has any claim, it would be at liberty to raise the same before the Arbitrator.
(5) The aforesaid six weeks granted by this Court to the respondent to appoint an Arbitrator admittedly expired on 25.1.1996. Since the respondent did not appoint any Arbitrator within the time frame fixed by this Court, namely, within six weeks from the date of the order, the petitioner has filed the present petition before this Court seeking for appointment of an independent Arbitrator by this Court.
(6) Notice having been served on the respondents, reply has been filed in this Court contesting the prayer of the petitioner as raised in this petition. In the said reply, it has been stated that the name of Shri D.P. Gupta, Addl. Chief Engineer (Civil), was approved on 20.2.1996, as the Arbitrator to decide the disputes arising between the parties in the present case. It is further stated that the Arbitrator has already entered upon the reference and the said Arbitrator has directed the parties to submit their written statement of claims by 14.3.1996.
(7) The counsel appearing for the respondents submits that under the Arbitration Agreement between the parties, it is the General Manager, Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking, who could appoint an Arbitrator and since the earlier direction issued by this Court on 14.12.1995 was to the Assistant General Manager, therefore, the afore- said order requires to be modified and the respondents should be given a liberty to file an appropriate application in that regard. It is, however, seen from the records that Shri D.P. Gupta has been appointed as an Arbitrator to decide the disputes arising between the parties by the Assistant General Manager of the respondent No. 1 on 20.2.1996. Accordingly the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the respondents has no merit and no further time could be given for that purpose. The counsel also submits that this Court can condone the delay in appointing the Arbitrator by the respondent No. 1.
(8) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
(9) On perusal of the records, it is apparent that this Court in order to give effect to the Arbitration Agreement between the parties directed the respondent No. 1 to appoint an Arbitrator within six weeks of the order passed on 14.12.1995. In spite of being aware of the aforesaid order, no steps were taken by the respondent No. 1 to appoint an Arbitrator within the time frame fixed by this Court. Since no appointment of the Arbitrator was made by the respondent No. 1 in terms of the order passed by this Court, in my considered opinion, the respondent No. 1 forfeited its power to appoint an Arbitrator in terms of the Contract and in view of such inaction on the part of the respondent No. 1, the petitioner is vested with the power to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court to appoint an independent Arbitrator. In this connection, I may appropriately refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in M/s. G. Ramachandra Reddy & Co. Vs. Chief Engineer, Madras Zone, Military Engineering Service, . The Supreme Court in the said case has held that even if Section 8(a) per se does not apply, notice was an intimation to the opposite contracting party to act upon the terms of the contract and his/its nona ailment entails the forfeiture of the power to appoint an arbitrator in terms of the contract and gives right to the other party to invoke the court’s jurisdiction under Section 20. In my considered opinion, the ratio of the aforesaid decision is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case with full force and in terms thereof, I hold that after expiry of the six weeks time fixed by this Court for appointment of an Arbitrator and noè appointment of the Arbitrator having been made by the respondent No.l, within the time frame, the respondent No. 1 has forfeited its right to appoint an Arbitrator and the Court could assume jurisdiction under Scion 20 of the Arbitration Act to appoint such an Arbitrator in order to resolve the disputes arising between the parties in the present case.
(10) Accordingly, I appoint Shri V.R. Vaish, Retd. Director General, S-99, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi, to act as an Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes arising between the parties as set out in paragraph 10 of the petition. The respondent No. 1 is also given the liberty to raise claims, if it so chooses, before the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator shall enter into the reference without any further delay and shall make/publish his a\ward within a period of four months of within such reasonable time as the parties may agree upon.
(11) The fee of the Arbitrator is fixed at Rs,20,000.00 lumpsum which shall be borne by the parties in equal proportion which ultimately shall follow the result of the Arbitration.
(12) In the result, the petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.