It was also clearly mandated that in case a party failed to attend the hearing, the Arbitrator shall proceed with the reference ex-parte based on the available records held with him. Further to that, it was also mentioned that no further extension of time would be granted in view of the time constraint. It was further directed that the parties should ensure that all the relevant documents were handed/taken over during the hearing and the case of both the parties shall be presented to the Arbitrator. The respondent further drew the attention to the notice given to both the parties issued by the Arbitrator that the case would be taken up for hearing on 21st June 2021. The respondent submitted that it was because of the appellant that a time-frame was fixed by this Court for disposal of the said arbitration proceedings by 31st January 2013 and the appellant, knowing it fully, was delaying the disposal of arbitration proceedings. Dhiman to file arbitration proceedings vide the two Power of Attorneys had the power on behalf of the appellant in question. There was no document produced that the person(s) authorizing Mr. Dhiman was not authorized to file the claim proceedings on behalf of the appellant. Respondent’s statement of defence The respondent raised the issue of locus- standi of the appellant before the Arbitrator, stating that Mr. Justice BN Srikrishna Report on Institutionalisation of Arbitration.