PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT, CHANDIGARH. *** Arbitration Case No. 137 of 2009. Date of decision: March 30, 2010. *** M/S North Star Safety System Pvt. Ltd. Versus M/S Neva Garments Ltd. Hussainpura G.T.Road, Ludhiana. *** 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 Rajeev Kataria, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri Rahul Rampal, Advocate, for the respondents. *** Mukul Mudgal, CJ (Oral) In this petition filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Reconciliation Act, 1996, the petitioner has prayed for appointment of an Arbitrator to settle the dispute between the parties. Upon notice of motion, learned counsel for the respondents put in appearance and in the reply filed today which is taken on the record controverted the averments made in the petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. A perusal of the agreement shows that there is an arbitration clause which reads as under:- '' the agreement shall be read and construed according to the Laws of India and all disputes and -2- Arbitration Case No. 137 of 2009. differences arising out of or in connection with this agreement, shall be settled by arbitration under the India arbitration and conciliation act, 1956. However, it is further agreed that the jurisdiction of arbitration shall be Ludhiana. In the event of any dispute arising out of this agreement between the parties hereto and the matter being referred to the court of law, then the courts only at Ludhiana shall have jurisdiction to decide upon the matter. That this agreement supersedes all prior understandings or agreement, if any, between the parties to this agreement and this agreement shall be valid for a period of one year unless terminated prior thereto as herein provided. No waiver or modification of any of the terms of this agreement shall be valid unless done in writing and signed by or on behalf of the parties hereto''. It is admitted case of the parties that notice invoking arbitration clause was given on 2.12.2009. The only plea taken by the counsel for respondent is to the effect that the claim raised by the petitioner in this petition is not genuine and in fact the dispute really exists between the petitioner and the transport company and the claim is sought to be foisted on the respondent. In my view what ever may be the merits of the plea raised by the respondents in this petition, the genuiness of the claim cannot be gone into in the proceeding under Section 11 of the Act ibid and whether the claim is genuine or not, is itself a dispute between the parties, which could be gone into by the arbitrator in view of arbitration clause. Accordingly, I appoint Shri Inderjit Kaushik, District & Sessions Judge (Retd.), as an Arbitrator to settle the dispute between the parties. The statement of claim shall be furnished to the counsel for the respondents within four weeks from today. Reply thereto -3- Arbitration Case No. 137 of 2009. shall be sent by the respondents to the counsel for the petitioners within four weeks thereafter. The parties are directed to appear before the Arbitrator on July 19, 2010 or an agreed date convenient to the parties but not later than 15 days from the aforesaid date, after exchange of pleadings as directed aforesaid. The arbitrator shall dispose of the reference not later than six months from the first date of appearance of the parties. The arbitrator shall be free to fix his own fee. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms. March 30, 2010 (Mukul Mudgal) Malik Chief Justice