JUDGMENT: The Court:- This is an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, hereinafter referred to as the 1996 Act, is for appointment of an Arbitrator in place of Justice Sohan Lal Saraf, retired Judge of this Court, who resigned as Arbitrator. The said Arbitrator had been appointed by the Honble Chief Justice, in exercise of power conferred under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. While this application was pending, an office order no. S/E-4/149(Arbt.)/Vol.II/6594 dated December 17, 2008 was issued intimating the approval of the Corporation to the appointment of one Sri Kripan Dasgupta, Ex. Chief Engineer (E), DVC as sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the petitioner and the respondent. It prima facie appears to this Court that no arbitrator could have been appointed by the respondent since the earlier arbitrator had been appointed by the Honble Chief Justice under Section 11(6) of the 1996 Act. Section 15(2) of the 1996 Act provides as follows:- 2 "Where the mandate of an arbitrator terminates, a substitute arbitrator shall be appointed according to the rules that were applicable to the appointment of the arbitrator being replaced". The rules applicable to the appointment of the erstwhile Arbitrator would apply to appointment of substitute Arbitrator. The Honble Sohan Lal Saraf had been appointed under Section 11(6) as stated hereinabove. In Union of India-Versus- Bharat Battery Manufacturing Co. (P) Ltd. the Supreme Court held that once a party filed an application under Section 11(6) of the Act, the other party extinguished its right to appoint an arbitrator in terms of the clause of the agreement thereafter. After the petitioner moved the application on which the Honble Sohan Lal Saraf had been appointed no arbitrator could have been appointed in terms of the agreement. Substitute Arbitrators would also have to be appointed by the Honble Chief Justice and/or His designate under Section 11(6) of the Act. In the aforesaid circumstances, there will be an order of injunction restraining the arbitrator appointed pursuant to the order dated 17th December, 2008 from proceeding with the reference till three weeks after the vacation or until further orders whichever is earlier. It is made clear that the above observations are only prima facie. Let the matter be listed as "For Orders" on 9th January, 2009 at 2 p.m. Mr. It is made clear that the above observations are only prima facie. Let the matter be listed as "For Orders" on 9th January, 2009 at 2 p.m. Mr. Mukherjee, appearing on behalf of the respondent took an objection to the maintainability of this application The question of maintainability is kept open. All parties are to act on a xerox signed copy of this order on the usual undertakings.