1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR ORDER S.B.ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO.71/2008 M/s.R.G.Colonizers (P) Ltd. Versus M/s.Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Ltd. DATE OF ORDER --- December 23,2010 PRESENT HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE PREM SHANKER ASOPA Mr.Nitin Jain, for the applicants Mr. R.D.Rastogi, for the respondent Heard learned counsel for the parties on the application u/s 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short `the Act of 1996') for appointment of the Arbitrator. There is no dispute that an agreement dated 20.1.2005 (Anx.3) has been executed between the parties which contain arbitration Clause 28, wherein three modes have been prescribed (i) that the dispute may be resolved amicably, (ii) that any dispute remaining unresolved shall be referred to a person of repute mutually agreed for resolving the dispute and (iii) if any dispute remains unresolved, it will be referred for adjudication to the sole arbitrator to be appointed by both the parties of mutual consent. The aforesaid arbitration Clause 28 is as follows: “28. ARBITRATION Any dispute arising out of this Agreement shall be resolved amicably. Any dispute remaining unresolved shall be referred to a person of repute mutually agreed for resolving the disputes. If any dispute remains unresolved, it will be referred for adjudication to the sole arbitrator to be appointed by both the parties of mutual consent.” Counsel for the respondent has taken an objection that none of the aforesaid three recourses has been adopted by the applicant. In rejoinder, counsel for the applicant has submitted that letter dated 18.8.2008 (Anx.11) was sent to the respondent for resolving the dispute amicably and further has placed reliance on Annexure-11 dated 18.8.2008 for settlement of the outstanding bill of Rs.11,93,613.00 in respect of which various letters were written. Counsel for the applicant further submits that the respondent has failed to resolve the dispute amicably, therefore, the second method of appointing a person of repute to settle the dispute be taken into consideration by this Court. 2 Counsel for both the parties have mutually agreed that the dispute may be referred to Mr.Sharad Chandra Shrotriya, Retd. Distt. Judge – a person of repute, for resolving the same. In view of the above, there is no stage to appoint the Sole Arbitrator. However, considering the fact of mutual agreement between the parties to take resort to the second method of arbitration clause 28. Mr.Sharad Chandra Shrotriya, Retd. Distt. Judge is appointed to mutually resolve the dispute. All objections would be open to be raised by the respondent before Mr.Sharad Chandra Shrotriya, Retd. Distt. Judge. The fee shall be fixed by the parties by mutual agreement. The application is disposed of with liberty to the parties that in case the dispute remains unresolved before Mr.Sharad Chandra Shrotriya, Retd. Distt. Judge, then the parties will be at liberty to file an application for appointment of the Sole Arbitrator. A copy of this order be sent to Mr.Sharad Chandra Shrotriya, Retd. Distt. Judge, 23/117, Swarn Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur. (Prem Shanker Asopa) J. गोpa ल