1 Arbitration Case No.28/2011 22.11.2011 Shri Hitesh Sharma, Advocate for the applicant. Shri S.H. Sen, Advocate appears on advance notice on behalf of the non-applicant MP RRDA. The applicant before this Court has filed this present application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. The contention of the applicant Company is that they have entered into an agreement with M.P. Rural Road Development Authority and an agreement was executed between the parties. The applicant has further stated that the time allowed to complete the work was 12 months including rainy season and as the non- applicant MPRRDA has hopelessly failed to discharge its contractual obligations in respect of providing 75% work site, the work was not completed in time and the applicant have raised bill of Rs.1,86,28,914/- with interest and costs vide letter dated 25.8.2010. It has been further stated that as per the terms and conditions of the agreement Clause 24, which provides for dispute redressal system, a letter was written on 31.8.2010 with a request to decide the matter and since the MPRRDA did not respond to the applicant's letter, a request was made to constitute an arbirtral Tribunal. It has also been stated that no arbitral Tribunal has been constituted so far and, therefore, the present application has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an arbitrator by this Court. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and perused the record. In the present case the agreement executed between the parties provides for dispute redressal system as well as for arbitration. Clause 24 and 25 of the agreement reads, thus: 2 “24. Dispute Redressal System If any dispute or difference of any kind what-so- ever shall arises in connection with or arising out of this Contract of the execution of Works or maintenance of the Works there under, whether before its commencement or during the progress of Works or after the termination, abandonment or breach of he Contract, it shall, in the first instance, be referred for settlement to the competent authority shall, within a period of forty-five days after being requested in writing by the Contractor to do so, convey his decision to the Contractor. Such decision in respect of every matter so referred shall, subject to review as herein after provided, be final and binding upon the Contractor. In case the Works is already in progress, the Contractor shall proceed with the execution of the Works, including maintenance hereof, pending receipt of the decision of the competent authority as aforesaid with all due diligence. 25. Arbitration Either party will have the right of appeal against the decision of the competent authority, nominated under Clause 24, to the Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal constituted under Madhya Pradesh Madhastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 provided the amount of claim is more than Rs.50,000/-.” Clause 25 provides for an appeal to the M.P. Arbitration Tribunal constituted under the M.P. Midhyastam Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983, in case the claim is more than Rs.50,000/-. The apex Court in the case of Ravikant Bansal v/s M.P. Rural Road Development Authority & Another, passed in S.L.P. (Civil) No.18867/2011 has held that in case there is named arbitrator under the arbitration agreement, the arbitration has to be done by the named arbitrator namely Madhya Pradesh Madhastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983. Resultantly, in the present case the arbitration has to be done by M.P. Arbitration Tribunal as it is a named arbitrator under the arbitration clause, keeping in view the judgment delivered by the Supreme Court in the case of Ravikant Bansal (supra). 3 Resultantly, the application is disposed of with a liberty to the applicant to approach M.P. Arbitration Tribunal for arbitration of the dispute involved in the matter. It is needless to mention that the time loss before this Court will not come in way of the applicant in the matter of limitation. (S.C. Sharma, J.) rcs*