ORDER : D.M. Dharmadhikari, J. Mr Rabindra Singh, learned counsel appears for the applicant on behalf of Mr Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Advocate-on-Record. Mr C.A. Sundaram, learned Senior Counsel is appearing with Ms Binu Tamta, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent 2. The applicant has placed on record two letters received on behalf of Respondents 1 and 3. Under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996, they are treated as having been served. 2. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr C.A. Sundaram has filed a written response and submits that his party was merely an agent to the Principal and being not a party to the arbitration agreement, he should be directed to be deleted from these proceedings and no reference qua Respondent 2 be made. 3. The counsel appearing for the applicant disputes the above factual and legal position. His argument is that as an agent under the agreement, Respondent 2 has received certain amounts which have not been passed on to the Principal. Therefore, it cannot be said that Respondent 2 is not a party to the agreement and to the arbitration. These facts are disputed on behalf of Respondent 2. Since the matter has been referred under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the same is left for decision by the arbitrator in accordance with Section 16 of the said Act. The parties are given an opportunity to propose the name of the arbitrator to be appointed for the respondents or name of the sole arbitrator for adjudicating the matter. 4. Put up the matter on 16-3-2005.