IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Arb. Case No.59 of 2009 Date of decision : March 9, 2010 M/s Mashroom Farm …Petitioner. Versus District Rural Development Agency …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. T.S. Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Additional Advocate General. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) Present application, under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, has been moved for appointment of an Arbitrator, in terms of agreement dated 4th January, 2005, Annexure C-1. As per this agreement certain plant for production of compost manure was leased out to the petitioner by the respondent. Respondent has filed a suit for recovery of lease money. On the other hand, the petitioner served a notice upon the respondent for appointment of Arbitrator to settling the claim for damages on account of loss sustained on account of non-supply of raw-material and not making available water and electricity, due to which it could not produce any compost manure during the first two years. 2. It is alleged in the application that the dispute having arisen between the parties, the same is required to Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… be referred to the Arbitrator, in terms of clause (xxiii) of the agreement. It is stated that the respondent was called upon to appoint the Arbitrator, but it having failed to do so, the petitioner was left with no alternative but to approach the Chief Justice to appoint an Arbitrator, under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 4. Clause (xxiii) of the agreement, regarding arbitration reads as follows: “xxiii. That if at any time any dispute, doubts, or questions arise between the lessor and the lessee or any person claiming under them, touching or arising out of or in respect of this deed the same shall be referred to the Secretary (Law) to the Govt. of H.P. as sole arbitrator whose decision shall be binding upon the parties, such arbitration shall be under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.” 5. It is clear from a bare reading of the aforesaid arbitration clause that Law Secretary had been nominated as Arbitrator by the parties in the agreement itself. Hence, Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, has no application. The parties are free to refer their alleged dispute to the Arbitrator named in clause (xxiii) of the agreement, i.e. Secretary (Law). Petition stands disposed of accordingly. March 9, 2010(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J