Arbitration Case No.55 of 2007 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Arbitration Case No.55 of 2007 Date of Decision: 15 - 07 - 2008 M/s R.K.Electrical Industries (India) Pvt. Ltd. ....Petitioner through Mr.Ashwani Talwar, Advocate v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited ....Respondents through Mr.Narender Hooda, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VIJENDER JAIN, CHIEF JUSTICE *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? *** VIJENDER JAIN, CHIEF JUSTICE (ORAL) This petition has been filed by the petitioner for appointment of an Arbitrator. Annexure P-1 contains the arbitration clause, which is not disputed by the respondents. It is the stand of the petitioner that in terms of the arbitration clause, a legal notice dated 20.5.2007 was served on the Managing Director and the Chief Engineer of the respondents invoking the arbitration clause for appointment of an Arbitrator. Since, no Arbitrator has Arbitration Case No.55 of 2007 [2] been appointed in terms of the said arbitration clause, the respondents have lost the right of appointing an arbitrator. Moreover, no response has been received from the respondents for appointment of an Arbitrator; hence present petition. Mr.Narender Hooda, learned counsel for the respondents has contended that the letter invoking the arbitration clause was not received by the respondents and, therefore, it cannot be said that the respondents were not ready and willing to appoint an Arbitrator in terms of the arbitration clause. As the controversy has been raised with regard to the receipt of letter dated 20.5.2007, counsel for the petitioner has shown the original of Annexure P-5, receipts of the Post Office which are dated 21.5.2007. After seeing the original of Annexure P-5, the same have been returned to the counsel for the petitioner. At this, Mr.Hooda says that it does not prove that notice invoking the arbitration clause was sent in the said envelop. From the perusal of pleadings of the parties, I do not find that this averment was made there in the reply. Even otherwise, there is a presumption under the General Clauses Act that if a registered A.D. letter is sent to a party, it has received the same. Even if the envelop was received in view of the postal Registered A.D. receipts perused by me, then the respondents should have responded to the petitioner that the envelop sent by it did not contain any letter. However, as no such pleading has been made in the reply to the petition, the respondents, in view of the letter dated 20.5.2007 written by the petitioner, have lost the right to supply the vacancy. Therefore, I appoint Justice S.K.Jain (a retired Judge of this Arbitration Case No.55 of 2007 [3] Court) as Arbitrator to adjudicate upon all the disputes between the parties. The Arbitrator shall fix his own fee. The intimation of appointment be sent to the Arbitrator. Parties to appear before the Arbitrator on 22.8.2008 at 4.00 P.M. Petition stands disposed of. ( VIJENDER JAIN ) July 15, 2008 CHIEF JUSTICE RC