IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Arbitration Case No. 117 of 2009 Date of Decision: 17.03.2010 M/s Miracle Electronics ..Petitioner Versus The General Manager and others ..Respondents 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 :- Mr. Rajiv Trikha and Mr. Sanjiv Trikha, Advocates, for the petitioner. Mr.Anil Rathee, Advocate, for the respondents. *** MUKUL MUDGAL, C.J. (Oral) 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act), for appointment of a sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties. 2. Upon notice, Mr. Anil Rathee, Advocate appeared on behalf of the respondents and stated that the Arbitrator has already been appointed as per Clause 22 of the agreement. He placed on record a copy of letter dated 8.9.2009. Relevant portion of the letter dated 8.9.2009 reads as follow:- Arbitration Case No. 117 of 2009 [2] “Under the provision of Clause No. 22 of the tender- agreement, worthy GMTD Hoshiarpur is pleased to appoint you to act as an Arbitrator in this disputed case to examine the facts and genuineness to resolve the dispute.” 3. In view of the appointment of the Arbitrator, the relief claimed in this petition stands satisfied. The parties will exchange the statements of claim and response thereof. The statement of claim be supplied to counsel for the respondents within four weeks and response to the statement of claim shall be supplied to the counsel for the petitioner within four weeks thereafter. The parties shall appear before the Arbitrator so appointed on 17.6.2010 at 4.00 P.M. or on an agreed date convenient to the parties but not later than a fortnight from the date of exchange of pleadings as directed aforesaid. The Arbitrator shall dispose of the reference not later than six months from the date of first appearance of the parties. In case the petitioner finds that the statement made today in the Court by counsel for the respondents is not correct, it will be open for it to apply for revival of the petition for appointment of an Arbitrator by this Court. (MUKUL MUDGAL) CHIEF JUSTICE 17.03.2010 'ravinder'