JUDGMENT By this Petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Petitioner seeks to challenge the award dated 26th January, 2012 passed by the learned Arbitrator allowing some of the claims made by the Respondent. 2. The Petitioner is challenging the said award on various grounds. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that by notice dated 15th November, 2009, the Respondent had suggested the name of Justice P. V. Kakade (Red.) as Arbitrator and had called upon the Petitioner to agree with the said name or to suggest any other name. The Petitioner did not agree to the name suggested by the Respondent. 3. It appears that the learned Arbitrator thereafter proceeded with the matter on the presumption that he was appointed by consent of both the parties. Before the learned Arbitrator, the Petitioner made an application, raising an objection about the jurisdiction of the learned arbitrator on the ground that he was not appointed by consent of both the parties but was unilaterally appointed by the Respondent. 4. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that as the Petitioner did not give consent to the name suggested by the Respondent, the learned Arbitrator could not have acted as an Arbitrator and the only remedy for the Respondent was to file an appropriate application under Section 11 (6) of the Act in this Court before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for appointment of an Arbitrator. In stead of filing the said proceedings, the Respondent proceeded with the arbitration before the learned arbitrator, appointed by the Respondent unilaterally. In my view, the Arbitrator should have been appointed by consent of both the parties and in absence of consent of any of the parties, the only remedy is to get the Arbitrator appointed by filing application under Section 11(6) of the said Act before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice. It is not in dispute that no such application was filed by the Respondent for appointment of arbitrator. 5. The record also indicates that though the objection was raised by the Petitioner before the learned arbitrator regarding has jurisdiction to act as a Sole Arbitrator who was unilaterally appointed by the Respondent, the same was not dealt with by the learned Arbitrator. 5. The record also indicates that though the objection was raised by the Petitioner before the learned arbitrator regarding has jurisdiction to act as a Sole Arbitrator who was unilaterally appointed by the Respondent, the same was not dealt with by the learned Arbitrator. In my view, issue about the jurisdiction of appointment of Arbitrator once having raised by the parties, the arbitrator was bound to decide the said objection before proceeding with the matter on merits. 6. In my view, the appointment of the learned arbitrator unilaterally by the Respondent and the act of the learned arbitrator acting as Arbitrator without consent of both the parties, is illegal and without jurisdiction. The entire award is thus, vitiated and is liable to be set aside. 7. As the view is taken by this Court that the entire proceedings was without jurisdiction, I need not deal with the other submissions raised by the Petitioner in the Petition. 8. I, therefore, pass the following order:- (i) Impugned award dated 26th January, 2012 made by the learned Arbitrator is set aside. (ii) It is made clear that both the parties would be free to invoke Arbitration proceeding afresh after following the provision of agreement and provisions of law. 9. At this stage, both the learned Counsel suggests that this Court shall appoint an Arbitrator. Mr. Mangal Bhandari, Advocate is hereby appointed as an Arbitrator. 10. All contentions on merits are kept open.