itself bad. Eventhough, the learned counsel for the respondent had relied upon various interim orders passed by this Court with regard to the conduct of the petitioner or the Arbitrator, no final decision was made by this Court with regard to a conduct of fraud that had been played by the petitioner. Therefore, this Court cannot subscribe to the argument made by the learned counsel for the respondent that a finiding of fraud had been conclusively made against the petitioner. Further, this Court in the earlier order had permitted the parties to institute a denova arbitral proceedings. In my view, it would take place from the stage of appointment of Arbitrator since, this Court had only found that the constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal by the petitioner at that relevant point of time was only bad. Had a finding been rendered that no invocation of the arbitral proceedings or there was an invalid Section 21 notice, this Court could agree with the learned counsel for the respondent that the present arbitrartion proceedings will have to also be initiated only after issuance of the fresh Section 21 notice. Once Section 21 notice has been issued, it is deemed that the parties invoking Section 21 have decided to invoke the arbitration clause. Such a decision to invoke has not been found fault with by the Court in the earlier proceedings. Therefore, I am of the view that there is no necessity to again issue a Section 21 notice for the petitioner to approach this Court by filing the present petition.
