ORDER This is an application filed by M/s. Nirma Cerglass Technics (P) Ltd., a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 under sub-section (2) of Section 14 read with sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and para 3 (1) (c) of the scheme for appointment of Arbitrators seeking substitute Arbitrator in place of Prof. R.Kumar, retired Dean, Department of Chemical Engineering, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore. 2. Background facts in a nutshell are: The applicant is a Private Limited Company incorporated under the provisions contained in the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in manufacturing and marketing of scientific devices and equipments. The 1st respondent-International Advanced Research Centre for Power Metullergy and New Materials (for short" ARCI") is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act XXI of 1860. S.V. Joshi-2nd respondent is an Associate Director and Dr. G. Sundararajan-3rd respondent is the Director of the 151 respondent-Society. 'ARCI' carries out research work for the development of a number of scientific products useful to persons in different walks of life. It is one of the Premier Scientific Research Institutes of the Government of India. It is substantially financed by the Ministry of Science and Technology, Union of India. The applicant company has been in the business of manufacturing and marketing various kinds of catalytic converters. The applicant had entered into an agreement on 18-6-1999 with the 151 respondent for transfer of technology of certain scientific equipment, which is generally used and installed in automobiles for controlling emission level. The agreement dated 18-6-1999 contained a procedure for settlement of disputes arising between the parties as to construction, interpretations, effect and implication of any of the Articles of the Agreement. Article 21 of the agreement clause reads as hereunder:- "Article 21: Arbitration If any dispute or difference arising between the parties hereto as to construction, interpretations, effect and implication of any of the Articles of this agreement, such disputes or differences shall be referred to the sole arbitration of Secretary, Department of Science and Technology, Government of India". 3. It appears the applicant secured a soft loan of Rs.75 lakhs from Technology Information, Forecasting and Assessment Council (TIFAC) of the Department of Science and Technology, Government of India under an agreement dated 5-10-2000 and established production facilities in a shed rented on the 1st respondent's premises. 3. It appears the applicant secured a soft loan of Rs.75 lakhs from Technology Information, Forecasting and Assessment Council (TIFAC) of the Department of Science and Technology, Government of India under an agreement dated 5-10-2000 and established production facilities in a shed rented on the 1st respondent's premises. Some disputes cropped up between the applicant company and the 1st respondent-ARCI with regard to efficiency of the technology transferred by the 151 respondent-ARCI. According to the applicant company, the technology transferred by the 1st respondent-ARCI did not work well and had failed. The applicant company lodged report with S.H.O., P.S., Pahadi Shareef, Cyberabad against respondents 1 to 3. Basing on the report lodged by the applicant-company, the Station House Officer, Pahadi Shareef P.S., registered a case in Crime No.481 of 2007 for the offences under Sections 406, 418, 420 and 120-B of IPC and issued F.I.R. The police, after due investigation, filed a charge sheet before the II Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy at L.B. Nagar, Respondents 2 and 3 filed Criminal Petition No. 7901 of 2008 to quash the proceedings in Crime No. 481 of 2007. The said petition ended in dismissal by order dated 17-3-2008. Thereupon, respondents 2 and 3 carried the matter to the Supreme Court and the matter is stated to be pending in the Supreme Court, vide S.L.P. (Crl.) No.2517 of 2009. 4. Since the Secretary, Government of India, has been chosen to be the Arbitrator, the applicant company lodged a claim before the Secretary, Department of Science and Technology on 30-12-2007. Simultaneously, the applicant company also moved an application under sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 challenging the constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal on the ground that the present Secretary to Government of India, Science and Technology Department, Sri T. Ramasami is closely related to the third respondent. Secretary to Government, Department of Science and Technology (Arbitrator) passed orders on 15-02-2008 recusing himself from the proceedings. Thereupon, the applicant company moved an application being Arbitration Application No.42 of 2008 for appointment of an Arbitrator by way of substitution, as the Arbitrator chosen and appointed by the parties had recused from the assignment. The said application came to be allowed by this Court on 1-8-2008 appointing Prof. Thereupon, the applicant company moved an application being Arbitration Application No.42 of 2008 for appointment of an Arbitrator by way of substitution, as the Arbitrator chosen and appointed by the parties had recused from the assignment. The said application came to be allowed by this Court on 1-8-2008 appointing Prof. R.Kumar, Emeritus Professor, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, to be the Arbitrator in place of Sri T. Ramasami, Secretary to Government of India, Department of Science and Technology. 5. I deem it appropriate to refer the relevant portion of the order passed by this Court on 01-8-2008 in Arbitration Application No.42 of 2008, which reads as hereunder:- "When once an Arbitrator had recused to proceed further with the dispute, the need to substitute the Arbitrator would arise. When I solicited some names to be furnished for my guidance, for substituting the Arbitrator suitably, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rakesh Sanghi, had pointed out that the applicant would prefer any retired Judge of this Court to act as the Arbitrator. On the contrary, Sri M.S. Ramachandra Rao, learned counsel for the second respondent, would suggest that since the essential disputes that have cropped up between the parties need certain in depth levels of knowledge of science and technology and its interface with reference to appreciation and transfer of such technology, it would only be appropriate that persons with science and technology knowledge and temper could be more appropriate to act and function as an Arbitrator. Accordingly, the learned counsel suggested the names of (i) Dr. S. Sivaram, Director of National Chemical Laboratory, Pune, (ii) Dr. AD. Damodaran, Adviser/Consultant on Intellectual Property Rights at Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre (VSSC) of Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) and Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) of Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) and (iii) Prof. R. Kumar, Emeritus Professor, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore and Honorary Professor, Jawaharlal Nehru Centre for Advanced Scientific Research (JNCASR), Bangalore. Since the essential disputes between the parties have cropped up upon the failure of the technology and the attributable factors thereto, I consider it appropriate to choose a person who is fairly well versed in science and technology to act as an Arbitrator rather than a former Judge of this Court. Since the essential disputes between the parties have cropped up upon the failure of the technology and the attributable factors thereto, I consider it appropriate to choose a person who is fairly well versed in science and technology to act as an Arbitrator rather than a former Judge of this Court. It may be quite possible for a former Judge of this Court to adequately comprehend the intricacies and interplay of science and technology and also grasp the core issues that have formed the basis for the disputes that have cropped up between the parties and consequently, come up with a suitable solution therefor, but, nonetheless, persons with great depths of knowledge of science and technology and the practices adopted and followed in transfer of technologies would be more suitable to appreciate with necessary details the causative factors for the disputes between the parties. In the process, I consider that Prof. K.Kumar, Emeritus Professor, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, is eminently suitable for the present assignment, in view of the following areas of his expertise - Multiphase phenomena, Dispersion of fluids in liquids from submerged nozzles, Engineering analysis of foam beds, Analysis of turbulent stirred dispersions, Bio-leaching of copper from lean ores, multi component Precipitation involving small systems and Analysis of sonochemical reactors; and also in view of some of his outstanding award and honours received by him in the field of science, namely, Bhatnagar Prize for Engineering Sciences, given by CSIR (1976), Herdilia Award for 'Excellence in Basic Research' given by IIChE (1985), Shri Om Prakash Bhasin Award for Engineering (1991), Jawaharlal Nehru Birth Centenary Visiting Fellowship, INS (1995), Shanti Swamp Bhatnagar Award, INSA (1997) and Padma Bhushan awarded by President of India (2003) and that he is now associated with an academic body rather than with any Governmental Agency or Institution. For the above-mentioned reasons, I consider it appropriate to appoint Prof. K. Kumar, Emeritus Professor, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, to be the Arbitrator in place of Sri T. Ramasami, Secretary to Government of India, Department of Science and Technology. The learned Arbitrator may enter upon the reference and carryon with the proceedings from the stage where they have been left off by his predecessor. The learned Arbitrator is free to fix his fee appropriately for this assignment. …… ………….. The Arbitration application is accordingly allowed." 6. The learned Arbitrator may enter upon the reference and carryon with the proceedings from the stage where they have been left off by his predecessor. The learned Arbitrator is free to fix his fee appropriately for this assignment. …… ………….. The Arbitration application is accordingly allowed." 6. The applicant company carried the matter to the Supreme Court questioning the appointment of Prof. R. Kumar, Retired Dean, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore) as an Arbitrator. The applicant urged before the Supreme Court in the Special Leave Petition that a former Judge of the High Court is to be appointed as an Arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the parties. The S.L.P filed by the applicant company ended in dismissal at the admission stage on 05-12-2008. It appears the applicant company filed an application to review the order dated 01-8-2008 passed in Arbitration Application No.42 of 2008 and to replace Prof. R. Kumar as an Arbitrator. The said application is stated to have been returned in SR stage. Prof. Kumar (Arbitrator) wrote a letter to the applicant-company and respondents 1 to 3 on 22-9-2008 to suggest the convenient dates as well as the venue for the first meeting to finalize the procedure to be followed after mutual discussions. The applicant company did not choose to respond to the said letter. Again, the Arbitrator wrote a letter dated 20-02-2009 requesting the applicant company to submit its claim and other documents. Thereupon, the applicant company addressed a letter to the Arbitrator to disclose his association with Department of Science and Technology (DSR) and Dr. T. Ramasami, Secretary, apart from respondents 2 and 3. The Arbitrator replied to the counsel appearing for the applicant company giving details, vide letter dated 13-4-2009. The Arbitrator wrote another reminder dated 22-9-2009 to the applicant company to submit claim statement and required documents giving time till 15th October 2009. The Arbitrator relinquished Arbitratorship by addressing a letter dated 11-12-2009 to the Joint Registrar, High Court of A.P. It is useful to refer relevant portion of the letter dated 11-12-2009 addressed by the Arbitrator to the Registry of this Court, which reads as hereunder:- "I also received a letter from Sri Rakesh Sanghi, Advocate who wrote on behalf of his client M/s. Nirma Cerglass Technics (P) Ltd., Hyderabad. A copy of this letter is enclosed as Annexure 6. A copy of this letter is enclosed as Annexure 6. Sri Sanghi raised the issue of my being unbiased and informed me that his client carried the matter in Appeal to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, where again the Hon'ble Judges refused to believe, that I could be biased. He then asked me to disclose my association with the Department of Science and Technology, Dr. T. Ramasami, its current Secretary, as well as with Dr. Sundararajan and Dr. Joshi. He then asked a number of questions, which he wanted Dr. Sundararajan and Dr. Joshi to answer. Those questions are not relevant at this stage as the Technology had already been transferred and allegedly not worked as per the terms of transfer. In my reply to him, I disclosed my relationship with DST etc. In addition, I requested him once again to submit the claim along with appropriate documentation as that would be the first step towards arbitration. Any questions could be raised only later. I am enclosing a copy of my letter dated 13th April, 2009, as Annexure 7. However, I did not receive any letter from him in response. Nor did I receive any claims with or without supporting documents. I waited for the claims along with the supporting Documents until 22nd September 2009 and then wrote another reminder to Mr. Khaja M.M. Khadar with copies to his Advocate as well as the respondents requesting him once again to submit the claims with appropriate documents and gave him time upto 15th October. I am enclosing a copy of that letter as Annexure 8. Now it is nearing middle or December and still I have not received any response from him or his Advocate. Under these circumstances, I am relinquishing my Arbitratorship with a request that the Hon'ble High Court may kindly appoint an alternative Arbitrator or take other appropriate steps in the matter. It will no longer be possible for me to continue as an Arbitrator. I was not sure whether I could write directly to the Hon'ble Justice. Hence I have addressed this letter to you. Kindly place it before the Hon'ble Sri Justice Nooty Ramamohana Rao or other appropriate authority for decision and necessary action. I have with me the copies of the documents sent by you earlier. Kindly advise me if I can send them back to you by Courier or Speed post. Hence I have addressed this letter to you. Kindly place it before the Hon'ble Sri Justice Nooty Ramamohana Rao or other appropriate authority for decision and necessary action. I have with me the copies of the documents sent by you earlier. Kindly advise me if I can send them back to you by Courier or Speed post. I will post them on hearing from you. Looking forward to hearing from you." 7. The applicant company has filed the instant application with the relief stated supra. For completion of narration of background facts, I may refer paragraphs 24 to 28 of the affidavit filed in support of the petition and they are thus: "24. It is submitted that I presented a Review Petition bearing application Sr.No.3419 of 2009 on the file of the Hon'ble Court seeking review of the Orders dated 01-8-2008 in the light of the disclosure made by the said Prof. Kumar. However, the said Review Petition was returned by the Registry of this Hon'ble Court on the ground that there is no provision in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 permitting a Review of the Order appointing a substitute Arbitrator. 25. It is therefore submitted that despite a number of letters issued by Prof. Kumar expressing his willingness to continue the Arbitral proceedings, I did not participate in the fixed arbitral proceedings because the said Prof. Kumar would definitely be biased in favour of the respondents. 26. I submit that ultimately, the said Professor Kumar issued a letter dated 1-12-2009 directly to this Hon'ble High Court (by marking copies to all the parties herein) intimating everybody that he is relinquishing his post as Arbitrator. Of course, the case of the said Prof. Kumar is that the applicant did not participate in the arbitral proceedings, and the case of the applicant is that as per his own letter dated 13-4-2009, the said Prof. Kumar disclosed that he is a close friend and confident of the 2nd and 3rd respondents and Dr. T. Ramasami (close relative of the 3rd respondent) and therefore, it would be impossible to expect a dispassionate adjudication from him. 27. Kumar disclosed that he is a close friend and confident of the 2nd and 3rd respondents and Dr. T. Ramasami (close relative of the 3rd respondent) and therefore, it would be impossible to expect a dispassionate adjudication from him. 27. I submit that since the very inception I had been urging that a Retired Judge of the Hon'ble A.P. High Court should be appointed to enter into the reference and the Arbitrator so appointed can invoke the provisions contained in Section 26 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. 1996 for taking assistance of a scientist or, any technical person for resolving the contentious issues of fact and law involved in the case. 28. It is therefore submitted that on account of the vacancy to the post of arbitrator which has arisen on account of withdrawal from office by the said Professor Kumar vide his letter dated 11-12-2009, I am left with no other alternative or, efficacious remedy except to institute the subject application seeking appointment of a substitute arbitrator. II 8. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 20-01-2010. Respondents 1 to 3 entered appearance through a counsel and filed counter affidavit. Dr. G. Sunderrajan (3rd respondent) has sworn to the counter affidavit. 9. Heard Mr. Rakesh Sangi, learned counsel appearing for the applicant and Sri M.S. Ramachandra Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since Prof. R. Kumar, Arbitrator, is close friend and confident of respondents 2 and 3 and Dr. T. Ramasami, who is a close relative of third respondent, and in view of such close association, the applicant company is apprehending of getting dispassionate adjudication from him. He would also submit that in the given facts and circumstances of the case, appointment of a former Judge of this Court as an Arbitrator is essential. In case, any technical assistance is required, the same can be secured by invoking Section 26 of the Act. Learned counsel refers the letter addressed to Prof. R. Kumar on 11-3-2009 and also the letter dated 13-4-2009 addressed by Prof. R. Kumar to the applicant company to convince that Prof. R. Kumar (Arbitrator) is closely associated with respondents 2 and 3 and one Dr. T. Ramasami. Learned counsel refers the letter addressed to Prof. R. Kumar on 11-3-2009 and also the letter dated 13-4-2009 addressed by Prof. R. Kumar to the applicant company to convince that Prof. R. Kumar (Arbitrator) is closely associated with respondents 2 and 3 and one Dr. T. Ramasami. It is also contended by him that dismissal of the S.L.P cannot be construed as imprimatur of Supreme Court on correctness of decision of High Court. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court in M/s. Rup Diamonds and others v. Union of India and others (1) AIR 1989 SC 674 and Saurashtra Oil Mills Association v. State of Gujarat and another (2) AIR 2002 SC 1130 . 11. In Rup Diamonds' case (1 supra), the Supreme Court held that rejection of special leave petition against the decision of the High Court cannot be construed as imprimatur of Supreme Court on correctness of decision of High Court. In Saurashtra Oil Mills Association case (2nd supra), the Supreme Court observed that dismissal of special leave petition without a speaking order would only mean that the Court was not inclined to exercise its discretion in granting leave to file the appeal. It is useful to extract paragraph 14 of the cited judgment needs to be noted and it is thus: "14. Relying upon a judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Appeal No. 1546 to 1549 of 1998 decided on 30th June 1999 (copy of which has been placed on the record) wherein a similar action of the Government of Andhra Pradesh relating to the similar provision was struck down and against which Special leave Petition (C) No.CC 3461-3464 of 2000 was dismissed by this Court, counsel appearing for the appellants contended that to maintain consistency. in the orders passed by this Court these appeals should be accepted and the impugned judgment of the Gujarat High Court be set aside otherwise different laws declared by different High Courts in different States would prevail leading to uncertainty and confusion. The submission is misconceived. Repeatedly, it has been held that dismissal of special leave petition without a speaking order would only mean that the Court was not inclined to exercise its discretion in granting leave to file the appeal. The submission is misconceived. Repeatedly, it has been held that dismissal of special leave petition without a speaking order would only mean that the Court was not inclined to exercise its discretion in granting leave to file the appeal. It does not attract the doctrine of merger and the view expressed in the impugned order does not become the view of this Court. The dismissal of the special leave petition by a non-speaking order would remain a dismissal simpliciter in which permission to file the appeal to this Court is not granted. This may be because of various reasons. It would not mean to be the declaration of law by this Court. In a recent judgment of three-member Bench in Kunhayammed and others v. State of Kerala and another MANU/SC/0432/2000: [2000] 245 ITR 360 (SC), after exhaustive consideration of the entire case law this Court has reaffirmed this position. Summing up the conclusion in Clause (iv) of Para 44, it was held: "(iv) An order refusing special leave to appeal may be a non-speaking order or a speaking one. In either case it does not attract the doctrine of merger. An order refusing special leave to appeal does not stand substituted in place of the order under challenge. All that it means is that the Court was not inclined to exercise its discretion so as to allow the appeal being filed." Thus, the dismissal of the special leave petition in limine against the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh would not operate as a binding precedent taking away the jurisdiction of a co-equal Bench to adjudicate on the same point on merits in a case where the leave to file the appeal has been granted. Submission that different laws would be prevalent in different States because of the different views expressed by different High Courts thus creating uncertainty and confusion cannot be accepted as the law declared by this Court would be the law prevalent in the country." 12. What is laid down in the above referred two decisions is that dismissal of the special leave petition cannot be construed as imprimatur of Supreme Court on the correctness of the decision of the High Court. It is applicable in case where the parties to the special leave petition, which ended in dismissal and the parties to the subsequent appeal are different. It is applicable in case where the parties to the special leave petition, which ended in dismissal and the parties to the subsequent appeal are different. But, in the case on hand, the applicant company itself challenged the appointment of Prof. R. Kumar as an Arbitrator by filing Special Leave Petition and the same ended in dismissal. Therefore, the two decisions on which the learned counsel relied on are inapplicable to the facts of the case on hand. 13. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the applicant company itself is responsible for stalling the proceedings before the Arbitrator and in which case, the application filed by it seeking appointment of a retired Judge of this Court as an Arbitrator by way of substitution does not deserve for consideration. He would also contend that as per column No.10 of the application, the applicant company indicated the cause of action for the dispute as 18-6-1999 and in which case, the dispute has become stale and arbitrator cannot be appointed to consider a stale claim. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed on the following decisions:- (1) Union of India and others v. Major General Madan Lal Yadav (3) (1996) 4 SCC 127 = 1996 (2) ALT 10 (D.N.) (2) Kusheshwar Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar and others (4) 2007 (6) SCJ 765 = (2007) 11 SCC 447 = 2008 (4) ALT 25.3 (DNSC) (3) Speech and Software Technologies (India) Private Ltd. V. Noes Interactive Limited (5) 2009 (2) ALT 28 (SC) = 2009 (2) SCJ 6 = (2009) 1 SCC 475 . 14. In Union of India v. Major General Madan Lal's case (3 supra), the Supreme Court held that the accused himself being responsible for delay by escaping from detention, he cannot take advantage of his own wrong. Paragraph 28 of the cited judgment needs to be noted and it is thus: "28. Even if narrow interpretation is plausible, on the facts in this case, we have no hesitation to conclude that the trial began on February 25, 1987 on which date the Court-martial assembled, considered the charge and the prosecution undertook to produce the respondent who was found escaped from the open detention, before the Court. It is an admitted position that GCM assembled on February 25, 1987. It is an admitted position that GCM assembled on February 25, 1987. On consideration of the charge, the proceedings were adjourned from day to day till the respondent appeared on March 2, 1987. It is obvious that the respondent had avoided trial to see that the trial would not get commenced. Under the scheme of the Act and the Rules, presence of the accused is a pre-condition for commencement of trial. In his absence and until his presence was secured, it became difficult, nay impossible, to proceed with the trial of the respondent-accused. In this behalf, the maxim nullua commodum capere protest de injuria sua propria - meaning no man can take advantage of his own wrong squarely stands in the way of avoidance by the respondent and he is estopped to plead bar of limitation contained in Section 123 (2). In Broom's Legal Maximum (10th Edn.) at page 191 it is stated "It is a maxim of law, recognised and established, that no man shall take advantage of his own wrong; and this maxim, which is based on elementary principles, is fully recognized in Courts of law and of equity, and, indeed, admits of illustration from every branch of legal procedure." The reasonableness of the rule being manifest, we proceed at once to show its application by reference to decided cases. It was noted therein that a man shall not take advantage of his own wrong to gain the favourable interpretation of the law. In support thereof, the author has placed reliance on another maxim frustrate legis auxilium quoerit qui in legem commietit. He relies on Perry v. Fitzhowe 8 Q.B. 757, it is stated that if a man be bound to appear on a certain day, and before that day the obligee put him in person, the bond is void. At page 193, it is stated that "it is moreover a sound principle that he who prevents a thing from being done shall not avail himself of the nonperformance he has occasioned". At page 195, it is further stated that "a wrong doer ought not to be permitted to make a profit out of his own wrong". At page 199 it is observed that "the rule applies to the extent of undoing the advantage gained where that can be done and not to the extent of taking away a right previously possessed". 15. At page 199 it is observed that "the rule applies to the extent of undoing the advantage gained where that can be done and not to the extent of taking away a right previously possessed". 15. In Kusheshwar Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar's case (4 supra), the Supreme Court held that a man cannot be permitted to take undue and unfair advantage of his own wrong to gain favourable interpretation of law. It is sound principle that he who prevents a thing from being done shall not avail himself of the non-performance he has occasioned. To put it differently, "a wrong doer ought not to be permitted to make a profit out of his own wrong". 16. In Speech and Software Technologies case (5 supra), the Supreme Court held that power under Section 11(6) of the Act is judicial power. The Designated Judge has to consider the claim of both the parties to the matter and pass a reasoned order. Existence of arbitration agreement is a condition precedent before exercise of powers under Section 11(6) of the Act. The preliminary matters to be considered by the Court are: (1) Existence of arbitration agreement, (2) Territorial jurisdiction, (3) Whether there are live issues to be referred to the arbitrator, and (4) Whether the application is filed within the period of limitation prescribed by law. If the Court finds that the arbitration agreement does not exist or is rescinded, then the prayer for referring the dispute to the arbitrator will have to be rejected. 17. During the course of hearing, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner filed memo proposing the name of three persons for being appointed one of them as arbitrator for resolution of the disputes. The names suggested by the petitioner are:- (1) Mr. R. Nagabhushan Rao, Scientist-F, Retired Director, Defence Mettulergical Research Laboratories (DMRL) (2) Dr. B.V.S. Subba Rao, Scientist-F, Retired Deputy Director, Defence Mettulergical Research Laboratories (DMRL) and President and Secretary of the Indian Ceramic Society, Hyderabad Chapter (3) Dr. Samdhani, Retired Head-Ceramics Division Osmania University, Hyderabad. 18. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that Mr. R. Nagabhushan Rao and Dr. B.V.S. Subba Rao are associated with respondent No.2-S.V. Joshi and respondent No.3-Dr.C.Sunderarajan for 12 years and 16 years respectively. With regard to Dr. Samdhani, it is stated by the learned counsel that he was a teacher to respondent No.2-S.V.Joshi. 18. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that Mr. R. Nagabhushan Rao and Dr. B.V.S. Subba Rao are associated with respondent No.2-S.V. Joshi and respondent No.3-Dr.C.Sunderarajan for 12 years and 16 years respectively. With regard to Dr. Samdhani, it is stated by the learned counsel that he was a teacher to respondent No.2-S.V.Joshi. Such is the association of respondents 2 and 3 with the three proposed persons, the petitioner may resort to filing application before them to disclose their association with the respondents 2 and 3 and in which case, the matter has to go back again to square one frustrating the arbitral proceedings. It is also contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the proposed persons do not possess expertise in catalytic converters and they are only experts in ceramics, and therefore, the proposed persons may not be fit to be considered for appointment as arbitrator by way of substitution to Prof. R. Kumar. 19. In response to the contentions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant undertakes not to raise any objections for the appointment of anyone of the proposed persons as arbitrator. The memo of undertaking dated 01-4-2010 filed by the applicant has also been placed on record. 20. The point that calls for adjudication in this application is: Whether the petitioner made out valid ground for appointment of a substitute arbitrator? 21. Point: It is a matter of record that this Court appointed Prof. R. Kumar, Emeritus Professor, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore in place of Dr. T. Ramasami, Secretary, Government of India, Department of Science and Technology, as per orders dated 01-8-2008. The circumstances under which Prof. R. Kumar relinquished his Arbitratorship have been detailed in letter dated 11-12-2009 addressed to the Joint Registrar of this High Court. It is explicit from the letter that Prof. R. Kumar having vexed with the non-co-operation of the petitioner, chose to relinquish his Arbitratorship. Except the non-co-operation of the petitioner, there is no other reason for him to relinquish his Arbitratorship. It is the petitioner who compelled Prof. R. Kumar to write letter dated 11-12-2009 to the Joint Registrar of this High Court. R. Kumar having vexed with the non-co-operation of the petitioner, chose to relinquish his Arbitratorship. Except the non-co-operation of the petitioner, there is no other reason for him to relinquish his Arbitratorship. It is the petitioner who compelled Prof. R. Kumar to write letter dated 11-12-2009 to the Joint Registrar of this High Court. The petitioner having not cooperated with the Arbitrator appointed by this Court and having become unsuccessful in questioning his appointment by way of filing S.L.P. in Supreme Court, cannot be permitted to take advantage of his own fault and seek for appointment of a substitute arbitrator. Therefore, I find that the petitioner failed to make out any valid ground for appointment of a substitute arbitrator. 22. Accordingly, the arbitration application is dismissed with costs. It is made clear that Prof. R. Kumar can proceed with the arbitral proceedings and adjudicate the dispute between the parties. The Registry is directed to communicate a copy of this order to Prof. R. Kumar, Emeritus Professor, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore.