IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Arb. Case No. 118 of 2010 Date of decision 30.3.2011 M/s Abhay Associates ……petitioner Vs. Haryana Urban Development Authority and ors ……respondents CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: - Mr. Ashwani Kumar Bura, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ajay Nara, Advocate for respondents. Hemant Gupta, J Petitioner has sought appointment of an Arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for settlement of the dispute between the parties relating to the work of providing water supply scheme in Sector 13-P, 15-P & 16 and 17-P, Hisar. Such dispute arises out of an Agreement between the parties consequent to the acceptance of the tender dated 14.8.2001 submitted by the petitioner and accepted by the respondent. It is the alleged that the petitioner completed the work as allotted to him. The final payment was made on 27.8.2006. Thereafter, the petitioner found that a sum of Rs. 1,10,000/- is still due towards the respondents and consequently, a demand was made for appointment of an Arbitrator on 2.11.2006 (Annexure A/2). A legal notice was served on 27.3.2009 since the Arbitrator was not appointed. Respondents gave reply on 15.4.2009 vide Annexure A/5. Another request was made on 14.4.2009 and in response to the said communication, it was communicated that the petitioner has not Arb. Case No. 118 of 2010 submitted the claim within 180 days from the date of payment of the final bill, thus the disputes raised by the petitioner cannot be referred for settlement by an Arbitrator. In reply to the petition, respondent has asserted that the petitioner has not submitted its claim within 180 days from the date of payment of the final bill and that the disputes are required to be referred to the named Arbitrator i.e. Superintending Engineer, HUDA Circle, Hisar, therefore, the present petition is not maintainable before this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that in the reply filed by the respondents, the petitioner had not made reference to the communication dated 2.11.2006. Such communication is proved to be received by the respondents from the communication of the Executive Engineer to the Counsel for the petitioner dated 15.4.2009 (Annexure A-5) wherein, the reference has been made of the request made by the petitioner for appointment of the Arbitrator. Such request for appointment of an Arbitrator is within the period of 180 days. Therefore, the respondents have failed to appoint an Arbitrator in respect of the notice. Therefore, this Court is required to appoint an independent Arbitrator for settlement of the dispute between the parties. The final payment was released to petitioner on 27.5.2006. The petitioner has requested for appointment of an Arbitrator on 2.11.2006 i.e. within 180 days. Therefore, in terms of Clause 25-A of the Agreement, such disputes are to be settled through the named Arbitrator i.e. Superintending Engineer, HUDA, Hisar. However, the respondents have denied the settlement of the dispute by the Superintending Engineer even though the notice was received by an official of the respondent. The respondents have failed to appoint an Arbitrator any time before the filing of the petition or even 2 Arb. Case No. 118 of 2010 till today. Keeping in view the aforesaid circumstances, respondents are now precluded in law for appointment of an Arbitrator in terms of the Agreement between the parties. Thus, Mr. J.D. Chandna, Additional District Judge (Retd.), House No. 1560, Sector 13, Hisar is appointed as an Arbitrator. Learned Arbitrator may fix his fee with the consultation of the parties with liberty to the parties to seek directions, if any required, in the matter of fee. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 30.3.2011 preeti 3