ORDER 1. THIS IS AN APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 11(6) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 (FOR SHORT "THE ACT"). IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE "SHAREHOLDERS AGREEMENT" DATED 4-5-2000 AND THE "OPERATION AGREEMENT" AND THE ARBITRATION CLAUSES CONTAINED THEREIN, THE PETITIONER, WHICH IS A COMPANY INCORPORATED IN MAURITIUS, BY ITS NOTICE DATED 9-12-2002, WHILE 9 NOMINATING SHRI SHARAD UPASANI, MUMBAI, AS THE SOLE ARBITRATOR, CALLED UPON THE RESPONDENT TO APPOINT ITS ARBITRATOR WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF NOTICE IN CASE THE RESPONDENT DID NOT AGREE FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF SHRI UPASANI AS THE SOLE ARBITRATOR. PURSUANT THERETO, THE RESPONDENTS DID NOT NOMINATE ANYONE AS ARBITRATOR. HOWEVER, PRIOR TO THE NOTICE DATED 9-12-2002 SENT BY THE PETITIONER, THE RESPONDENT, PURSUANT TO THE ORDER OF THE DELHI HIGH H COURT IN THE CONTEXT OF THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 9 OF THE ACT, PROPOSED THE NAMES OF THREE PERSONS AND THE PETITIONER WAS CALLED UPON TO CHOOSE ONE AMONGST THEM AS THE ARBITRATOR. HOWEVER, SUCH A REQUEST IS NOT STRICTLY IN CONFORMITY WITH THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENTS. THEREFORE, IT MUST BE DEEMED THAT THE RESPONDENT FAILED TO APPOINT AN ARBITRATOR WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE RECEIPT OF THE REQUEST FROM THE PETITIONER TO DO SO, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPOINTMENT PROCEDURE CONTEMPLATED BY THE AGREEMENTS. HENCE, THE PRESENT APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED BY THE PETITIONER. 2. IN THE COURSE OF HEARING, IT IS STATED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT COMPANY THAT THE COMPANY WOULD LIKE TO NOMINATE SHRI JUSTICE A.M. AHMADI, RETIRED CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA, AS THE SOLE ARBITRATOR. I CONSIDER IT APPROPRIATE TO APPOINT THE SAME PERSONS PROPOSED BY THE PARTIES AS ARBITRATORS. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, SHRI JUSTICE A.M. AHMADI AND SHRI SHARAD UPASANI ARE HEREBY APPOINTED AS JOINT ARBITRATORS TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTES AND DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE PARTIES ARISING OUT OF THE TWO AGREEMENTS MENTIONED ABOVE. THE LEARNED JOINT ARBITRATORS WILL HAVE TO NOMINATE A THIRD ARBITRATOR IN TERMS OF SECTION 10( 1) OF THE ACT. 3. THERE WAS SOME DEBATE ABOUT THE VENUE OF THE ARBITRATION. IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO EXPRESS ANY VIEW ON THIS ASPECT OF THE MATTER AS IT IS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THIS APPLICATION. 4. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPLICATION IS DISPOSED OF. THE REGISTRY SHALL COMMUNICATE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED ARBITRATORS.