V. V. S. RAO, J. ( 1 ) HIS application is filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Act) read with paragraph-3 of the scheme of appointment of Arbitrators framed by the Hon ble Chief Justice of andhra Pradesh High Court, praying this court to confirm appointment of Justice a. Venkata Rami Reddy as umpire and direct the arbitration proceedings to go on and for such other orders as are deemed fit by this Court. ( 2 ) IN short, the case of the applicant is that when there was a dispute between indian Airlines and respondent and as per arbitration procedure, the applicant appointed Sri D. Surya Rao as Arbitrator, and respondent appointed Sri C. V. K. Prasad as Arbitrator. Both of them allegedly at one point of time appointed Justice A. Venkata rami Reddy as umpire. Allegedly, the arbitrator appointed by the respondent did not co-operate to proceed with arbitration expeditiously and also the respondent objected to appointment of the retired Judge of this Court as umpire. Therefore, they filed this application seeking a direction confirming the appointment of Hon ble sri Justice A. Venkata Rami Reddy. ( 3 ) AFTER receiving notice, the respondent has filed a counter-affidavit raising two preliminary objections besides objections on the merits of the case. It is stated that when the Indian Airlines is contracting party, it is improper for P. K. Gupta to file application in his personal capacity and such application is not maintainable. Secondly, it is urged that an application under Section 11 for confirmation of the appointment of Arbitrator is not maintainable under the Act. ( 4 ) THE matter was initially heard by me on 24-3-2004. Having realized that Indian airlines as corporate entity has not made application and only an Officer of Indian airlines has preferred application, learned counsel for the applicant sought two weeks time for rectifying the defect. Accordingly, on 24-3-2004 the matter was adjourned for two weeks. Thereafter, the matter is listed before me. None appears for the applicant and learned counsel for the applicant is absent. have heard the learned counsel for the respondent Sri V. Hariharan. ( 5 ) SECTION 11 (6) of the Act reads as under: 11 (6 ). Accordingly, on 24-3-2004 the matter was adjourned for two weeks. Thereafter, the matter is listed before me. None appears for the applicant and learned counsel for the applicant is absent. have heard the learned counsel for the respondent Sri V. Hariharan. ( 5 ) SECTION 11 (6) of the Act reads as under: 11 (6 ). Where, under an appointment procedure agreed upon by the parties.- (a) a party fails to act as required under that procedure; or (b) the parties, or the two appointed arbitrators, fail to reach an agreement expected of them under that procedure; or (c) a person, including an institution, fails to perform any function entrusted to him or it under that procedure, a party may request the Chief Justice or any person or institution designated by him to take the necessary measure, unless the agreement on the appointment procedure provides other means for securing the appointment. ( 6 ) A plain reading of the above would show that jurisdiction of the Hon ble Chief justice or any Hon ble Judge designated by the Hon ble Chief Justice is attracted only when under the appointment procedure agreed upon by the parties (i) when the party fails to act as required under the procedure; (ii) when the parties or two appointed arbitrators failed to reach an agreement under the procedure; (iii) or when a person fails to perform any function entrusted to it under the procedure. Admittedly, both the parties have agreed to appoint Arbitrator of their choice and those two Arbitrators have already appointed an umpire. In the face of this admitted fact, Section 11 of the Act is not attracted and therefore, per se, the application would not be maintainable. ( 7 ) FURTHER, clause 20 of the agreement (contract) dt. 18-12-1997 also would not permit such application. Clause 20 reads as under: 20. In the event of damages/loses caused to the employees of SANKHYA and IAL during the period of contract due to any negligence and acts of omission and commission within the campus of IALCTE on the party of any of the staff of SANKHYA the responsibility fully lies with SANKHYA. Clause 20 reads as under: 20. In the event of damages/loses caused to the employees of SANKHYA and IAL during the period of contract due to any negligence and acts of omission and commission within the campus of IALCTE on the party of any of the staff of SANKHYA the responsibility fully lies with SANKHYA. If any question or dispute shall at any time arise between the parties with respect to the meaning or effect of any clause in this agreement or the rights or liabilities of the parties hereto the same shall be referred to an Arbitrator who is chosen and appointed by both the parties by mutual agreement and in case of failure to do so, each party shall nominate a person of their choice and the persons so chosen by the parties shall appoint an umpire and thereafter enter into arbitration and made the award, and in the event of their disagreement the matter shall be referred to the umpire whose decision shall be final. The venue of Arbitration will be Hyderabad. ( 8 ) AS per Clause 20 of the agreement the parties have already appointed Arbitrators and they have by alleged consensus chosen an umpire. If any party resiles from the said position and objects for appointment of arbitrator or any Arbitrator appointed by any party resigns, the applicant has to resort to clause 20 alone and application under section 11 (6) of the Act is not proper remedy. ( 9 ) THE application for the above reasons is dismissed.