petitioner, the respondent raised an objection that the learned Arbitrator had been unilaterally appointed and that any award rendered by him would be non-est . It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has approached the Court for appointment of a substitute arbitrator. 3. Notice was issued in this petition on 10.08.2023. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner had been noted in the order dated 22.11.2023, to the effect that the respondents have been served by email and speed-post. However, in view of the office noting that the respondents could not be served, dasti service was directed. Dasti service at the address of the respondents has been unsuccessful as the respondents were stated to have left the premises in question. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has today handed up an affidavit of service, which is taken on record. It shows that service has been effected upon the respondent at the email address [email protected], and upon counsel who was appearing on behalf of the respondent in the arbitral proceedings at the email address [email protected]. The aforesaid email address of the respondent, [email protected], appears in the agreement dated 17.07.2020 as an address upon which notices are to be served upon it under clause 21.3(ii), and also in a communication dated 08.06.2021 addressed by the respondent to the petitioner. The aforesaid email address of learned counsel appears on the vakalatnama filed by him before the learned arbitrator [at page 108 of the present petition].
