ORDER 1. LEAVE GRANTED. 2. THE LEARNED JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT WHO PASSED THE ORDER DATED 23-7 -2003 ACTING AS A DESIGNATED AUTHORITY UNDER SECTION 11 (5) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 HAS PROCEEDED ON FACTUALLY WRONG PREMISES. IT IS STATED IN THE ORDER THAT THE RESPONDENT BEFORE HIM FAILED TO FILE REPLY TO THE PETITION AND ALSO FAILED TO CONTROVERT THE STATEMENT OF FACTS AND AVERMENTS MADE IN THE PETITION. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT AND REPLICATION WERE AVAILABLE ON RECORD BUT THE LEARNED JUDGE HAS FAILED TO PERUSE THE SAME. 3. WE AGREE WITH THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT THAT SERIOUS PREJUDICE HAS BEEN CAUSED TO THE APPELLANT AND FAILURE OF JUSTICE HAS BEEN OCCASIONED AS THE LEARNED DESIGNATED JUDGE HAS NOT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION ANY OF THE PLEAS RAISED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE HIM IN THE COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT FILED. THE MATTER DESERVES TO BE REHEARD AND DECIDED AFRESH. 4. THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED. THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE HIGH COURT IS SET D ASIDE. 5. THE ORDER DATED 23-7-2003 IS SET ASIDE. THE MATTER IS REMANDED TO THE LEARNED CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI FOR BEING HEARD AND DECIDED AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 11 OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996. THE LEARNED CHIEF JUSTICE MAY EITHER HIMSELF HEAR THE MATTER OR DESIGNATE ANY OTHER JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT FOR THE E PURPOSE. 6. THE PARTIES THROUGH THEIR RESPECTIVE COUNSEL ARE DIRECTED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT ON 19-9-2005. 7. NO ORDER AS TO THE COSTS.