IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Arb. Case No.9 of 2009 Date of decision : March 29, 2010 M/s M.K. Enterprises …Petitioner. Versus H.P. Agro Industries and another …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General, for respondent No.2. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) The present petition, under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, has been moved for appointment of an Arbitrator. 2. Factual matrix, as it appears from the record, is like this. There was an agreement between the petitioner and the respondents for transportation of bitumen, belonging to the respondents, by the petitioner, from Panipat to various places within the State of Himachal Pradesh. Agreement contained an Arbitration clause for resolving the disputes that might arise between the parties. As per the Arbitration clause, Secretary (PWD) is the named Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… Arbitrator to settle the disputes that may arise between the parties. 3. According to the petitioner, some dispute arose, for which the Arbitrator, named in the agreement, was approached, but he did not take cognizance of the dispute within a period of 30 days and, therefore, the petitioner was left with no alternative but to approach this Court, under Section 11(6)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. 4. Respondent No.1 stated that it is not to blame for the delay caused by the Arbitrator, in taking cognizance of the matter. 5. Respondent No.2, i.e. the named Arbitrator, has filed separate reply, in which he has stated that with the request of the petitioner for entering upon arbitration, copy of the Arbitration Agreement was not there and so he made a back reference to the petitioner, but it did not respond to that reference and so cognizance of the matter could not be taken. He has stated that in two other similar matters of two other persons, namely Brij Lal and Amit Singh, he had already entered upon arbitration. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 7. Arbitrator has stated in his reply that he has not been supplied a copy of the agreement and that he made back references and there was no response to such …3… references. Learned counsel for the petitioner says that no such reference was received by the petitioner. 8. Be that as it may, the fact remains that there is a named Arbitrator in the agreement and that Arbitrator is not unwilling to enter upon arbitration, as is clear from his reply. Therefore, in the facts and the circumstances of the case, it is ordered that the petitioner shall supply to the named Arbitrator a copy of the agreement, within a period of one month from today and thereafter within 15 days the named Arbitrator will enter upon arbitration. Petition stands disposed of. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of, as having become infructuous. March 29, 2010(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J