should then appoint a third arbitrator
who shall act as the presiding
arbitrator. Such an appointment should
preferably be made at the beginning.
However, we see no reason, why the two
arbitrators cannot appoint a third
arbitrator at a later stage i.e, if and
when they differ. This would ensure that
on a difference of opinion the
arbitrationproceedingsarenot
frustrated. But if the two arbitrators
agree and give a common award there is no
frustration of the proceedings. In such
a case their common opinion would have
prevailed, even if the third arbitrator,
presuming there was one, had differed.
Thus we do not see how there would be
waste of time, money and expense if a
party, with open eyes, agrees to go to
arbitration of two persons and then
participates in the proceedings. On the
contrary there would be waste of time,
money and energy if such a party is
allowed to resile because the award is
not to its liking. Allowing such a party
to resile would not be in furtherance of
any public policy and would be most
inequitable.”
