Arbitration Case No.155 of 2006 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Arbitration Case No.155 of 2006 Date of Decision: 10 - 03 - 2008 Harpreet Singh ....Petitioner through Mr.S.K.Mahajan, Advocate v. Punjab Ware House Corporation Ltd. And others ....Respondents through Mr.N.D.S.Mann, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VIJENDER JAIN, CHIEF JUSTICE *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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? *** VIJENDER JAIN, CHIEF JUSTICE (ORAL) This petition was filed before the District Judge, Amritsar. In view of the judgment in SBP and Co. v. Patel Engineering Ltd. and another, (2005)8 SCC 618, the present petition was transferred to this Court. Clause 25 of the agreement regarding arbitration is not disputed between the parties. Clause 25 inter alia states that the provisions of Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 or any other statutory enactment thereunder or modification thereof and for the time being in force shall apply to the arbitration proceedings under this clause. Petitioner issued a legal notice to the respondents invoking the Arbitration Case No.155 of 2006 [2] arbitration clause for settling the disputes inter se the parties. That notice was sent by the petitioner on 18.11.2002, which is at page 121 of the paper-book. Notice was served on the respondents. However, the respondents chose not to reply the said notice. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition under Sections 8 and 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the District Judge, Amritsar some times in May, 2003. The respondents filed the reply in August, 2003. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has contended that in the reply the stand taken by the respondents was that the petitioner was not an approved contractor. It was further stated in the reply that the quality of the work executed by the petitioner was not up to the mark and lastly it was stated that all payments due have been made to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondents has taken the same objections and contended that when there was no due towards the respondents, no Arbitrator could have been appointed. I have given my careful consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties. Clause 25(i) of the agreement is relevant which is reproduced below:- “i) If any dispute or difference of any kind what-so-ever shall arise between the Corporation/its authorised representative and the contractor in connection with or arising out of this contract or the execution of work there under.” The argument of learned counsel for the respondents that the contractor was not an approved contractor or whether the work done by the petitioner was not satisfactory according to the respondents and whether there was any due on account of extra items or otherwise, are all issues which have to be resolved under the mechanism provided under the arbitration clause. Respondents having neither done so nor even replied to the legal notice and thereafter raising a dispute when a petition under Section 11 of the Act was filed, forfeits their right for appointment of Arbitrator in terms of the arbitration clause. Arbitration Case No.155 of 2006 [3] All the defence which have been taken by the respondents are arbitrable. Therefore, I appoint Shri P.C.Singal (retired District and Sessions Judge) as the sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon all the disputes between the parties. The Arbitrator shall fix his own fee. Intimation of appointment be sent to the Arbitrator. Parties to appear before the Arbitrator on 25.4.2008 at 11.00 A.M. Petition stands disposed of. ( VIJENDER JAIN ) March 10, 2008 CHIEF JUSTICE RC