pvr 1 aa167-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO.167 OF 2011 Enkon Pvt.Ltd. ...Applicant vs. 1.Department of Posts, India and others. ...Respondents --- Mr.S.I.Memon, for Applicant. Mr.Kiran Kandpile, for Respondents. --- CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH, J. DATED: 11th November,2011. P.C.:- 1. This is an application made under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. According to the applicant, the following is the arbitration clause:- “(b) (Application where one of the parties is a private party) ‘Any dispute or difference whatsoever arising between the parties to this pvr 2 aa167-11 Agreement out of or relating to the construction, meaning scope, operation or effect to this agreement or the validity of the beach thereof shall be referred to an Arbitrator to be appointed by mutual consent of both the parties herein. If the parties can not agree on the appointment of the arbitrator within a period of one month from the notification by one party to the other of existence of such dispute, then the Arbitrator shall be nominate3d by the secretary, Department of legal Affairs, Ministry of Law and justice (Law Secretary). The provision of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996 will be applicable and the onward made there under shall be final and binding upon the parties hereto, subject to legal remedies available under the law. Such differences shall be deemed to be a submission to arbitration under the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996, or of any law modifications, rules, or reenactments thereof. The Arbitration proceedings will be held at Mumbai.” It appears that the petitioner had, in relation to the pvr 3 aa167-11 dispute which he proposes to raise before the arbitration, filed a writ petition in this Court. In that writ petition, a reply was filed on behalf of the respondents wherein a contention was raised that the High Court should not entertain the petition in its extraordinary jurisdiction because in the agreement between the parties, there is an arbitration clause. The petition of the petitioner was, therefore, disposed of as withdrawn. The petitioner thereafter addressed a letter dated 2.3.2011 invoking the arbitration clause and suggesting names of five retired Judges of this Court to be appointed as Arbitrator. There was no reply received from the Respondents, hence, this petition has been filed. In this petition also time was sought on 7.10.2011 for filing reply. Time was accordingly granted. But no reply has been filed. 2. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for both the sides. Apparently there is an arbitration clause in the agreement. Even, according to the respondents as per the reply filed in the writ petition, there is an arbitration clause. In my pvr 4 aa167-11 opinion, therefore, an Arbitrator will have to be appointed. Hence, Hon’ble Mr.Justice Shri.R.J.Kochar (Retired) is appointed as Arbitrator. The application is disposed of. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) ---