SATYAWAN IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT 2014.09.16 16:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CHANDIGARH High Court Chandigarh ARB-74-2014 Date of Decision : 12.09.2014 [ENTITY] Petitioner Versus [ENTITY] & another Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE [ENTITY], ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Present : Mr. [ENTITY], Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. [ENTITY], Addl. A.G., Haryana. 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? [ENTITY], ACJ. (Oral)
The petitioner has prayed for appointment of an Arbitrator in terms of [SECTION] of the Contract Agreement.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as there is a dispute between the parties, therefore, an Arbitrator is to be appointed in order to settle the dispute between the parties.
Mr. [ENTITY], learned Addl. A.G., Haryana, appearing on behalf of the respondents, states that respondents vide letter dated 3.6.2014 have appointed Sh. [ENTITY], Chief Engineer (Bridges), Haryana PWD B&R Branch, Chandigarh, as sole Arbitrator for adjudication of the disputes between the parties arising out of the above mentioned agreement. He further submits that if the sole arbitrator appointed by the respondents is not acceptable then the petitioner as per the arbitration clause may appoint his arbitrator and then his arbitrator and the arbitrator appointed by the department would choose the third arbitrator ARB-74-2014 -2- 2014.09.16 16:17 as per arbitration clause so as to constitute the Arbitral Tribunal.
Learned counsel, on the other hand, appearing for the petitioner states that he does not pray for an Arbitral Tribunal and instead would be satisfied if a sole arbitrator is appointed by this Court as has been done by the department itself in letter dated 3.6.2014. He further submits that the respondents have lost their right to appoint the arbitrator in view of [SECTION] of the Arbitration clause.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
A perusal of the documents placed on record show that both the parties are not inclined to have an Arbitral Tribunal but intend to have a single arbitrator. A perusal of the letter dated 3.6.2014 shows that department itself is agreeable to appointment of sole arbitrator in the matter. In so far as the right of the department to appoint an arbitrator after filing of this petition is concerned, that right stands forfeited. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has invoked the arbitration clause vide his letter dated 25.3.2014 requesting the respondents to appoint one of the arbitrator out of the five names he suggested in that letter. This petition was filed on 1.5.2014, wherein notice of motion was issued on 2.5.2014. The arbitrator has been appointed by the department on 3.6.2014 i.e. after expiry of 30 days. The question whether an appointment made after 30 days from the date of invocation of the arbitration clause is valid or not is no more res integra because the Hon'ble Supreme Court has enunciated the law in [ENTITY] Ltd. vs. Tata Finance Ltd. & Anr. 2000(8) SCC 150 that if an arbitrator is not appointed by the respondents within the 30 days of invocation of the arbitration clause, the party competent to appoint the arbitrator looses its right to do so. Similar view was taken by this court in [PRECEDENT] vs. [ENTITY] and another, delivered on ARB-74-2014 -3- 2014.09.16 16:17 9.11.2012 in [CASE NUMBER].
In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in [ENTITY]' case (supra) as well as [PRECEDENT]'s case (supra) and also the fact that both the parties want the matter to be referred to sole arbitrator instead of Arbitral Tribunal, I appoint Justice [ENTITY], (Former Judge of this Court, # 626, Sector 12-A, Panchkula) to act as an Arbitrator.
The fee of the Arbitrator shall be as per the schedule of Chandigarh Arbitration Centre.
Petition stands disposed of.
([ENTITY]) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE 12.09.2014 'SP'