Arbitrator on March 31, 2014. This appointment is disputed by the petitioner, inasmuch as they have not received any communication dated March 31, 2014. In fact, it is the stand of the petitioner that it came to know about the appointment of Mr. Dinesh Kumar as nominee Arbitrator of the respondent Company and Mr. Surendra Kumar as Presiding Arbitrator, through the letter of Mr. Surendra Kumar dated April 30, 2014 wherein he has stated that the Arbitral Tribunal has been constituted with him as the Presiding Arbitrator, Mr. J.S. Mehrok as petitioner‟s nominee and Mr. Dinesh Kumar as respondent Company‟s nominee. It is the case of the petitioner that it did not receive the communication dated March 31, 2014. I find that the respondent Company in its communication dated May 15, 2014 concede to the fact that communication dated March 31, 2014 intimating the appointment as Co-Arbitrators, got misplaced in transit which clearly suggests that till the date of the filing of the petition under Section 11 of the Act, the petitioner had no knowledge about the fact that the respondent Company had appointed its nominee Arbitrator and that the Co-Arbitrators thereafter, have appointed the Presiding Arbitrator. Even otherwise, I find that the communication dated March 31, 2014 appointing nominee Arbitrator on behalf of the respondent Company was beyond the period of 30 days from the date of appointment of the nominee Arbitrator by the petitioner. So, it must be said that the petitioner was justified in filing the petition before the High Court at Hyderabad for appointment of an Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties.
