BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA CHANDIGARH. *** Arbitration Case No. 65 of 2008. Date of Decision: January 08, 2010. *** M/S Modern Transformers Pvt. Ltd Vs. U.H.B.V.N.L and another *** 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: Shri Ashwani Talwar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri Sudhir Kumar, Advocate, for Shri Narender Hooda, Advocate, for the respondents.. *** Mukul Mudgal, CJ (Oral) This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of sole arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties arising out of purchase order dated 28.9.2004 (Annexure A-1). The purchase order dated 28.9.2004 which is the subject matter of the above petition contains the Arbitration clause which reads as under:- “ 14. ARBITRATION : All matter questions, disputes, difference and/or claims arising out of and/or concerning and/or in connection and/or in consequence or relating to this contract whether or not obligations of either or both parties under this contract be subsisting at the time of such dispute and whether or not this -2- contract has been terminated purported to be terminated or completed, shall be referred to the sole Arbitrator of the MD, UHBVNL or an officer appointed by the MD, UHBVNL as his nominee. The Award of the Arbitrator shall be final and binding on the parties to this contract. The objection that the Arbitrator has to deal with the matters to which the contract relates in the course of his duties or he has expressed his views or any or all of the matters in dispute of difference, shall not be considered as a valid objection. The Arbitrator may from time to time with the consent of the parties to the contract enlarge the time for making the award. The venue of arbitration shall be the place from which the purchase order is issued or such other place as the Arbitrator in his discretion may determine. The parties to the contract agree that the cost of arbitration shall be as per instructions of the Nigam issued/prevalent on the date of appointment of Arbitral Tribunal. Subject to aforementioned provisions, the provisions of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 and the rules thereunder, any statutory modifications thereof for the time being, in force shall be deemed to apply to the arbitration proceedings under this clause.” Notice of this petition was issued on May 12, 2008 and despite granting time to file reply upto July 21, 2008, no reply has been filed. Accordingly, this petition is taken up for hearing. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the orders -3- dated December 15, 2009 and January 07, 2010 passed by this Court in respect of the same tender which was the subject matter of Arbitration cases NO. 38 to 40 of 2009 and 64-66 of 2009 respectively. The arbitration clause in this petition was invoked vide letter dated 29.11.2007which had admittedly been received by the respondents. It has been asserted on behalf of the respondents that present dispute has also arisen from the same tenders/purchase orders which are being arbitrated upon by the sole arbitration of Justice N.K. Agarwala, former Judge of this Court. Accordingly, being a similar case, this petition is allowed in terms of orders dated December 15, 2009 and dated January 07, 2010 passed in connected matters referred to above and the dispute involved in this petition is also referred to the sole arbitration of Justice N.K.Agarwala, former Judge of this Court, for adjudication between the parties which have arisen out of tender/purchase order dated 16.9.2004. The parties are directed to appear before the Arbitrator on 16.01.2010. With these observations, this petition stands disposed off. (Mukul Mudgal) January 07, 2010 Chief Justice Malik