( 1 ) I. AS. 1512/94: This is an application under Order 9 Rule 9 C. P. C. For the reasons given in the application, the order dated November 23, 1993 is set aside and the petition and the I. A. No. 1062/92 are restored to their original number: ( 2 ) OMP N0. 15/92 and I. A. NO. 1062/92: Learned counsel for the parties state that the matter is a short one any may be taken up for disposal today. Accordingly, I propose to dispose of the said O. M. P. by this order. ( 3 ) THE respondent and M/s. Char Hsing Marine Co. Ltd. entered into a charter party agreement whereby 16,366,341 600 MT of rice was to be loaded at Saigon Port in Vietnam in vessel M. V. Charching owned by M/s. Char Hsing Marine Co. Ltd. for being delivered at the port of discharge at Beypore Port (Calicut ). The vessel reached Beyport Port (Calicut) on October 25, 1989. The petitioner was appointed as agent of M/s. Char Hsing Marine Co. Ltd. for the purpose of discharge of the cargo of Calicut. After discharge of the said cargo the respondent by their letter dated December 19, 1989 raised the claim against M/s. Char Hsing Marine Co. Ltd. for short leanding and damage to the cargo. The claim submitted by the respondent was rejected by the petitioner allegedly on behalf of its principal M/s. Char Hsing Marine Co. Ltd. The respondent invokved the arbitration clause contained in the Charter Party and appointed Captain D. T. Ramachandran as arbitrator for adjudicating the disputes between M/s. Char Hsing Marine co. Ltd,. and the respondent. However, Capt. Ramachandran expressed his inability to accept the offer of appointment with the result the Shri G. Subrahmanyam was appointed as an arbitrator. Mr. Subrahmanyam also declined to accept the reference made to him and, accordingly, Mr. T. R. Gopalakrishnan was appointed in his place. However, Mr. T. R. Gopalakrishnan also declined to accept the offer and ultimately Mr. g. J. Godweney was appointed as an arbitrator in terms of clause 62 of the Charter Party vide memorandum of the respondent dated May 30, 1991 (pages 181-183 of Part I of the court record ). The arbitrator Mr. G. J. Godwaney entered upon reference. In the claim statement filed by the respondent before the arbitrator Mr. g. J. Godweney was appointed as an arbitrator in terms of clause 62 of the Charter Party vide memorandum of the respondent dated May 30, 1991 (pages 181-183 of Part I of the court record ). The arbitrator Mr. G. J. Godwaney entered upon reference. In the claim statement filed by the respondent before the arbitrator Mr. G. J. Godwaney (page 61 of Part I of the court record), the petitioner was impleaded as respondent No. 2. The arbitrator after receipt of claim petition issued notice to the petitioner. This petition under section 33 of the Arbitration Act challenges the authority of the arbitrator to proceed in the matter in so far as the petitioner is concerned. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that there was no valied and subsleting arbitration agreement between the petitioner and the respondent. He contended that the arbitrator does not have the jurisdiction to proceed in the matter in so far as the petitioner is concerned as the petitioner is not a signatory to the Charter Party agreement and the petitioner was appointed as Steamer Agent for the discharge of the cargo at Calicut after the Charter Party agreement was entered into by and between the respondent and M/s. Char Hsing Marine Co. Ltd. ( 4 ) I have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also gone thought the record. I find that there is no denial to the fact that the petitioner was not a party to the Charter Party Agreement and was merely a Steamer Agent for discharge of the cargo at Calicut. It is also important to note that the petitioner does not figure in the. Memorandum dated May 30, 1991. A perusal of the memorandum shows that the appointment of Mr. g. J. Godwaney as arbitrator was made for the. purposes of adjudication of disputes between the respondent Corporation and M/s. Char Hsing Marine Co. Ltd, the respondent was not justified in making a claim against the petitioner when the petitioner was not a party to the charter Party Agreement and the reference was made to adjudicate the claims between the respondent and M/s. Char Hsing Marine Co. Ltd. For the same reason the arbitrator was not justified in issuing notice to the petitioner. Ltd, the respondent was not justified in making a claim against the petitioner when the petitioner was not a party to the charter Party Agreement and the reference was made to adjudicate the claims between the respondent and M/s. Char Hsing Marine Co. Ltd. For the same reason the arbitrator was not justified in issuing notice to the petitioner. ( 5 ) FOR the foregoing reasons I hold that there is no subsisting arbitration agreement between the petitioner and the respondent Corporation. The application is, therefore, allowed; However, the arbitration proceedings will continue between the respondent and M/s. Char Hsing marine Co. Ltd. It will also be open to the respondent to proceed against the petitioner for its claims before an appropriate forum in accordance with law, if so advised. ( 6 ) THE interim order dated January 13, 1992, is modified and the arbitrator will be at liberty to make and publish his award in so far as it relates to the respondent and M/s. Char Hsing Marine Co. Ltd.