Arbitration Case No.44 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURTOF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH. Arbitration Case No.44 of 2006 Date of decision: 23.1.2009 Ram Kewal ....Petitioner. vs. Vijay Kumar ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J.S.KHEHAR. Present: Mr.Ashok Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioner. Respondent ex parte. -- J.S.KHEHAR,J. (Oral) Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited this Court's attention to the fact, that the respondent has been served twice in this case but he has failed to enter appearance before this Court despite issue of notice at the hands of this Court. In the aforesaid view of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner states, that ex-parte proceedings may be initiated against the respondent. A perusal of the record of this case undoubtedly reveals, that the respondent did not enter appearance before the District Judge, Chandigarh, despite the fact that he had been served for 29.11.2005. He was accordingly, proceeded against ex parte on the aforesaid date. After the proceedings of the arbitration petition filed by the petitioner under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, before the District Judge, Chandigarh, were transferred to this Court, fresh service was effected on the respondent for 28.1.2008. Despite the issuance of fresh notice to the respondent, and despite his being duly served, he has remained unrepresented even for the dates of hearing of this case after Arbitration Case No.44 of 2006 2 28.1.2008. Thus viewed, it would be in the fitness of the matter to proceed ex parte against the respondent Ordered accordingly. In the instant petition, the claim of the petitioner is for appointment of an Arbitrator under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, in furtherance of an agreement dated 14.2.2002, photocopy whereof, is available on the record of this case. Paragraph 8 of the aforesaid agreement delineating the arbitration clause is being extracted hereunder:- “ That in the event of any disputes and differences at any later stage arising between the parties then the same shall be referred to the sole arbitration of competent court of law whose decision thereon shall be final and binding on both the parties”. It is the case of the petitioner, that the petitioner complied with the conditions of the agreement dated 14.2.2002, and yet, the respondent failed to carry out his reciprocal obligations whereupon, the petitioner issued a legal notice under registered acknowledgment due post to the respondent on 24.7.2004. Despite service of the aforesaid legal notice on the respondent, no further action was initiated at the hands of the respondent. Resultantly, the present application under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, came to be filed by the petitioner before the District Judge at Chandigarh. The said petition was eventually transferred to this Court for consideration. In the factual position, noticed hereinabove, it is imperative for this Court to appoint an Arbitrator in terms of section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. Accordingly Shri B.R.Gupta, retired District & Sessions Judge is appointed as Arbitrator. The Arbitrator shall settle his Arbitration Case No.44 of 2006 3 own fees, as well as, terms and conditions of his engagement. The parties are directed to appear before the Arbitrator on 2.3.2009. The Registry is directed to forward a copy of the instant order to the Arbitrator. ( J.S.Khehar) Judge January 23, 2009 rk