ARB No.117 of 2006 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. ARB No.117 of 2006 Date of Decision: 06.03.2009 M/s. Hari Ram Piara Lal ....Petitioner Versus Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and others. ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr.Justice J.S. Khehar Present: Mr. S.C. Khunger, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Girish Agnihotri, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vijay Pal, Advocate for the respondents. ... J.S. Khehar, J. (Oral). It is not a matter of dispute, that the contractual relationship between the parties, is based on the allotment of retail outlets for diesel and petrol vide allotment letter dated 22.2.1987. Although, both the outlets of diesel and petrol were earlier located at Moonak, at the asking of the respondents, the outlet of petrol was shifted from Moonak to Ghaunspura. The respondents sealed the diesel outlet on 11.7.2007, and on the following day i.e. 12.7.2007, the petrol outlet of the petitioner was also sealed. As a consequence of the aforesaid action taken at the hands of the respondents, the petitioner addressed a communication dated 13.7.2007, ARB No.117 of 2006 2 requiring the respondents to refer the matter relating to the sealing of its diesel and petrol outlets, to an arbitrator. Thereafter, the petitioner received a show cause notice from the respondents dated 21.9.2007. The petitioner filed a reply thereto vide a communication dated 1.10.2007, and then submitted a supplementary reply dated 8.10.2007. Still the respondents did not appoint an arbitrator. It is in these facts and circumstances, that the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present petition on 6.11.2007, seeking the appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Arbitration Act). The solitary contention of the learned counsel for the respondents, so as to oppose the claim of the petitioner for appointment of an arbitrator at the hands of this Court, is based on the fact that the respondents have actually appointed an arbitrator in furtherance of the dispute raised by the petitioner, on 13.5.2008. The only question to be adjudicated upon therefore, is, whether the appointment of an arbitrator by the respondents after the expiry of the period referred to under the Arbitration Act is valid ? And if not, whether this Court should appoint an arbitrator ? Insofar as, the instant issue is concerned, the legal proposition has already been adjudicated upon by this Court as against the respondents in M/s. Vijay H.P. Filling Centre Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation, (Arbitration Case No.23 of 2008, decided on 6.2.2009). In view of the above, the solitary objection raised on behalf of the respondents, is declined. As a consequence of the claim raised by the petitioner, following the legal position expressed by this Court in M/s. Vijay H.P. Filling Centre’s case (supra), I consider it just and appropriate to appoint an arbitrator in terms of Clause 68 of the agreement dated 22.9.1987 ARB No.117 of 2006 3 (Annexure P-1). Mr. P.C. Singhal, a retired District and Sessions Judge, is accordingly, appointed as an arbitrator. The arbitrator shall determine his own fee and other terms. Parties are directed to appear before the arbitrator, either in person or through counsel, on 30.3.2009. Disposed of accordingly. ( J.S. Khehar ) Judge 06.03.2009 sk.