THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL. Arbitration Application No. 01 of 2008 (Under Section 11 (5) & (6) of the Arbitration and conciliation Act, 1996) M/s Hillways Engineering Company, 34, Adarsh Gram, Dehradun Road, Rishikesh (Uttarakhand) through its partner Sri Mohan Lal Sharma. ....... Applicant. Versus 1. The Executive Engineer, Temporary Division, Lok Nirman Vibhag, P.O. Berinag, District Pithoragarh. 2. The Superintending Engineer, 12th Circle, Lok Nirman Vibhag Pithoragarh (Uttarakhand) now 3rd Circle, Lok Nirman Vibhag, Pithoragarh (Uttarakhand). 3. The Chief Engineer, Lok Nirman Vibhag, Almora (Uttarakhand). 4. Lok Nirman Vibhag, Secretariat Dehradun through its Secretary. ... Respondents. Sri S.K. Jain, learned counsel for the applicant. Sri K.P. Upadhyay, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents. Dated February 14, 2008. Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. The applicant has filed the application under Section 11 (5) and 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the Act) for appointment of Arbitrator to settle the disputes between the parties. According to the applicant M/s Hillways Engineering Company (for short the Company), the company is a partnership firm registered with the Registrar of Firms and the Societies Uttar Pradesh vide Annexure No. 1 and Mohan Lal Sharma is one of the partners of the said Firm. Tenders were invited by the respondents or improvement of Panar-Gangolihat motor Road and ultimately the tender of the applicant was accepted and consequently an agreement bond was executed between the parties, the particulars whereof have been given in paragraph no.4 of the application. The grievance of the applicant-Company is that the company started to execute the contract work as per agreement and had completed the worth Rupees More than 48 Lacs. After completion of the work, the company submitted bills for payments but the Department tried to avoid its liability to make the said payment but the respondents make payment of only Rs.18,25,817/-. It is further alleged that the applicant-company was ready to start the work mentioned at Serial No. 11 to 16 of Schedule B and to get the same executed within the stipulated period. The said work was required to be completed by the applicant-company by SDBC (Bituminous Concretes) which had to be done and completed with hot mix plant. The total value of the hot mix plant was about Rs.90 Lacs and for the said work the applicant-company arranged the hot mix plant and other equipments along wit the labours and other needed things. The applicant-company served a letter to the respondents and conveyed his intention that he is ready to start the rest of the work, but the respondents paid no need to his request. Subsequently, some dispute has arisen between the Executive Engineer concerned and other higher authorities regarding the execution of the work either by Pre Mix Concrete or S.D.B.C. and for that reason the rest of the work could not be started. In substance, according to the applicant-company, the respondents have decided from the terms and conditions of the agreement and the bank guarantee amount of Rs. 16.28 Lacs was encahsed by the respondent no.1 without any reason and authority and the respondents also terminated the contract bond illegally and informed the applicant vide letter dated 26-9-2007 vide Annexure no. 11. The applicant-company then invoked the arbitration clause of contract and sent a notice to the respondents to settle the claim by arbitration on 13-10-2007 vide Annexure No. 13. The respondents sent reply to the notice vide Annexure No. 14. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record including the counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit filed by the parties. Copy of contract bond executed between the parties has been filed as Annexure No. 3. There is an arbitration Clause No. 34, which provides for settlement of disputes by appointment of Abitrator. From the perusal of the application, counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit, I find that the dispute between the parties is referable to the Arbitrator. Learned counsel for the applicant- company has filed a list of persons to be appointed as Arbitrator. Both the parties have given their consent to appoint Justice O.P. Garg (Former Judge of the Allahabad High Court, R/O E-48, Sector 39, Noida as Arbitrator to settle the dispute between the parties. The application deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the application for appointment of Arbitrator is allowed. Justice O.P. Garg (Retired Judge of the Allahabad High Court), R/O E-48, Sector 39, Noida (U.P.) is appointed as Sole Arbitrator by the consent of both the parties. The learned sole arbitrator shall initiate the arbitral proceedings at an early date after presentation of the certified copy of this order and shall submit his Award in accordance with law as early as possible. (B.S. Verma, J.) RCP