Arbitration Case No. 96 of 2008 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Arbitration Case No. 96 of 2008 Date of Decision: 08.01.2010 P.E.C. Limited, Hansalaya ..Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKUL MUDGAL, CHIEF JUSTICE 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present :- Mr. Sumeet Goel, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.S.Rana, Addl. A.G. Haryana for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Baldev Singh Badhran, Advocate for respondent No.3. *** MUKUL MUDGAL, C.J. (Oral) This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ' the Act), for appointment of sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. Clause 18 of the agreement contains the Arbitration Clause which reads as under:- “18. If any question, difference or objection whatsoever shall arise, in any way, connected with or Arbitration Case No. 96 of 2008 [2] arising out of this instrument or the meaning or operation of any part thereof or the rights, duties or liabilities or either party then save in so far as the decision of any such matter is herein before provided for and has been so decided every such matter including whether its decision has been otherwise provided for and/or whether it has been finally decided accordingly and whether the contract should be terminated or has been rightly terminated in whole or part and as regards the rights and obligations of the parties as the result of such termination, shall be referred for arbitration to any officer appointed by the Haryana Government and his decision shall be final and binding and where the matter involves a claim the claim if any awarded in such arbitration shall be recoverable in respect of the matter so referred.” Pursuant to the above clause, the petitioner which is a Government of India undertaking sought arbitration but despite that no Arbitrator was appointed thereby leading to filing of the present petition. The plea set up by the respondents is primarily on the ground of limitation stating that the petitioner company was to supply the material by 15.03.2003 and on receipt of request/NOC, the bank guarantee amounting to Rs. 3.69 Crore was released on 15.10.2003 and the same was received by the representatives of the petitioner-company on the same day. Thereafter, no request was received by the company regarding any dispute till 15.06.2007, thus, the present proceedings are barred by limitation having not been initiated within three years of encashment of the bank guarantee. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner while rebutting pleas set up by the counsel for the respondents urged that Arbitration Case No. 96 of 2008 [3] limitation in this matter would start from 13.03.2006 when an intimation was sent by the respondents to the petitioner that an amount of Rs. 11,84,354/- is payable to the petitioner. I find force into the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. A bare perusal of letter dated 13.03.2006 shows that an intimation was lastly sent by the respondents to the petitioner with regard to the amount due to the petitioner. Contents of letter dated 13.03.2006 are reproduced hereunder for the sake of reference:- “Subject: Request for release of Rs. 1,39,12,206/- on account of supply of Jute Bags. As already informed vide this office letter No. Hafed/Proc./AM-1/3246 dated 6.5.2004 and subsequent correspondent resting with your office. An amount of Rs. 11,84,354/- is only payable to M/s PEC Limited by Hafed as per detail enclosed subject to pre audit by our Internal Audit Branch. The amount will be released after pre-audit. Sd/- General Manager(Proc.) Hafed, Panchkula.” Once the respondents have admitted vide letter dated 13.03.2006 that an amount of Rs. 11,84,354/- is payable to the petitioner, the limitation would start to run from that date. Therefore, the plea set up by the respondents that the claim is barred by limitation is not tenable and therefore, objection taken is rejected. Accordingly, I direct the State of Haryana to appoint an Arbitrator not later than three weeks from today. In the meanwhile, the parties will exchange the statements of claim and response thereof. The Arbitration Case No. 96 of 2008 [4] statement of claim be supplied to counsel for the respondents within four weeks and response to the statement of claim shall be supplied to the counsel for the petitioner within four weeks thereafter. The parties shall appear before the Arbitrator on 01.04.2010 or on an agreed date convenient to the parties but not later than a fortnight from 1.4.2010 after exchange of pleadings as directed aforesaid. The Arbitrator shall make endaveour to dispose of the reference not later than six months from the date of appearance of the parties. The Arbitrator shall fix his own fee. Petition stands disposed of. (MUKUL MUDGAL) CHIEF JUSTICE 08.01.2010 'ravinder'