1 Arbitration Case No. 63 of 2005. PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT, CHANDIGARH. *** Arbitration Case No. 63 of 2005. Date of decision: March 22, 2010. *** National Building Construction Corporation Limited Versus Punjab State Electricity Board and others. *** CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mukul Mudgal, Chief Justice. *** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? *** Present: Shri Aminesh Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri Y.P.S.Khullar, Advocate, for the respondents. *** Mukul Mudgal, CJ (Oral) In this petition filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Reconciliation Act, 1996, the petitioner has craved indulgence of this Court for the appointment of an Arbitrator to settle the dispute between the parties. Upon notice of motion, learned counsel for the respondents put in appearance and controverted the averments made in the petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. A perusal of the agreement shows that there is an arbitration 2 Arbitration Case No. 63 of 2005. clause which reads as under:- '' If at any time any question, dispute or difference whatsoever, shall arise, between the purchaser/Board and the Contractor/Supplier, upon or in relation to or in connection with the Purchase Order/Contract, either party may forthwith give to the other, notice in writing of the existence of such question/dispute or difference and the same shall be referred for sole arbitration of a nominee of the Purchaser/Board, who shall give a reasoned/speaking award. The award of the Sole Arbitrator shall be final and binding on the parties under the provisions of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 and of the Rules framed thereunder. Any statutory amendment, modification or replacement thereof for the time being in force, shall be deemed to apply to and be incorporated in the Contract/Purchase Order. It will not be objectionable if the Sole Arbitrator is an officer of the Board and he has expressed his views on all or any of the matters and he has expressed his views on all or any of the matters in question of dispute or difference''. It is not in dispute that two notices dated 10.9.2002 and 8.1.2003 were sent to the respondents invoking the arbitration clause. The only defence taken by the respondent is that the arbitrator has not been appointed because the matter was placed before the Arbitration Review Committee and the review committee in its meeting, after hearing the representatives of the parties, declined the request of the petitioner to appoint an arbitrator. The Arbitration Review Committee gave the following decision:- '' During discussions, the Arbitration Review Committee observed that the arguments put forth by the firm's representatives in support of their claims were totally outside the provisions of the contract agreement, therefore decided to reject the claim of the firm for appointment of Arbitrator''. In my view the review Committee constituted by the respondents cannot go into merits of the case and reject the prayer of the petitioner when there is no clause in the agreement for such arbitration 3 Arbitration Case No. 63 of 2005. review committee. It was not open to the aforesaid Committee to adjudge any clause of the agreement or the issues raised by the petitioner in its claim petition. Since the respondents did not appoint an Arbitrator till an application under Section 11 was moved in this Court, this Court is entitled to appoint an Arbitrator. The petition is allowed and Shri B.D.Gupta, Chief Engineer (Retd.) PWD (B&R), Punjab residing in House No. 1139, Sector 7, Panchkula is appointed as an Arbitrator. The statement of claim shall be sent to the counsel for the respondents within four weeks from today. Reply thereto shall be sent by the respondents to the counsel for the petitioners within four weeks thereafter. The parties are directed to appear before the Arbitrator on July 12, 2010 or an agreed date convenient to the parties but not later than 15 days from the aforesaid date, after exchange of pleadings as directed aforesaid. The arbitrator shall dispose of the reference not later than six months from the first date of appearance of the parties. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms. March 22, 2010 (Mukul Mudgal) Malik Chief Justice