IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA REQUEST CASE NO. 04 OF 2010 CMC LIMITED, A PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY REGISTERED OFFICE AT CMC CENTRE, OLD MUMBAI HIGHWAY, GACHIBOWLI, HYDERABAD 500032 AND CORPORATE OFFICE AT PTI BUILDING, 5TH FLOOR, 4, SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI- 110001. …….PETITIONER. VERSUS STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER, BIHAR CABINET ELECTION DEPARTMENT, 7, MANGLES ROAD, PATNA-800015. ….. RESPONDENT. ----------- For the petitioner : M/s. Ujjawal Jha & Abhishek Singh, Advocates. For the respondent : Mr. J.P.Karn, Senior Advocate Mr. Siddhartha Prasad, Advocate. ----------- 02/ 17.09.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. This petition has been filed for appointment of Arbitrator in pursuance of the arbitration clause no.26 of the contract dated 21.11.2002 for resolving the dispute arising out of the claim of the petitioner. The agreement is dated 21.11.2002 (Annexure-1) between the parties with respect to preparation of photo identity card in accordance with the guidelines of the Election Commission of India and as per the specifications prescribed by the Election Commission of India. It appears that there was a dispute between the parties and demand was raised by lawyer’s notice dated 28.03.2007 (Annexure-5) by the petitioner to the respondent for release of the outstanding amount claimed by the petitioner. It further transpires - 2 - that thereafter a notice for appointment of Arbitrator regarding the said dispute was sent on 16.12.2009 (Annexure-9) by the petitioner to the respondent, but admittedly more than 30 days lapsed and no step was taken in that regard by the authority concerned. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that subsequently on 29.01.2010 they had sent reply to the petitioner with regard to the said notice, but the said reply was much beyond the time prescribed by the agreement and by that notice the demand of the petitioner has been rejected. In the said circumstances, this request petition has been filed by the petitioner. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, it is quite apparent that all the requirements for appointment of an Arbitrator under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 are present and hence this court decides that an Arbitrator is required to be appointed for proper consideration and disposal of the dispute of the parties. Accordingly, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nagendra Rai, a retired Judge of this court, is appointed as Arbitrator. The said Arbitrator shall fix his own charges and expenses which will be borne by both the parties half and half. Both the parties are directed to approach the said Arbitrator along with a copy of this order within fifteen days from today. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this request case is disposed of. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)