Arbitration Case No. 94 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Arbitration Case No. 94 of 2009 Date of decision: 18.03.2010 Balaji Medicare Hospital ........Petitioner Versus National Insurance Co. and others. ........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mukul Mudgal, Chief Justice 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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? Present: Mr. Ashutosh Hoshiarpuri, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Pardeep Bedi, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Sameer Rathore, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Mr. N.S.Vasisth, Advocate for Mr. Ashwani Prashar, Advocate for respondent No.3. --- Mukul Mudgal, C.J.(Oral) Civil Misc. No. 6741-CII of 2010 Heard. Allowed subject to all just exceptions and CM disposed of. Civil Misc. No. 6742-CII of 2010 Heard. Reply filed on behalf of respondent No.2 is taken on record and CM disposed of. Arbitration Case No. 94 of 2009 [2] 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996(for short 'the Act'), for appointment of an independent Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes that have arisen between the parties. 2. Clauses 14.1 and 14.2 of the agreement contain the Arbitration clause which reads as follow:- “14.1 Any dispute, claim arising out of this agreement are subject to arbitration and jurisdiction of the courts of Chandigarh. Any amendments in the clauses of the Agreement can be effected as addendum, after the written approval from all the parties. 14.2 Any dispute, difference or question arising from this agreement shall be discussed between the parties and resolved amicably. If any amicable solution cannot be reached within 90 days either party shall have the right to have the said dispute settled by arbitration in accordance with the Indian Arbitration Act and the Venue of the Arbitration shall be Chandigarh.” 3. It is admitted case that some disputes took place between the parties. In view of the Arbitration clause, vide letter dated 24.6.2009 the petitioner called upon the respondent to settle its claim failing which it shall have the right to get the disputes settled through arbitration in accordance with the Arbitration Act. 4. The real dispute in this case is between the petitioner and respondent No.2. 5. Upon notice, the respondents put in appearance through their Advocates. They did not dispute the arbitration clause or invocation thereof by the petitioner. Arbitration Case No. 94 of 2009 [3] 6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 very fairly stated that similar disputes arising out of the similar agreements have already been referred by this Court to the Arbitration of Justice R.K.Nehru, former Judge of Jammu and Kashmir in Arbitration Cases No. 98 of 2009 and 110 of 2009 decided on 25.02.2010 and this may also be referred to the same arbitration for adjudication. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not have any objection to the concession extended by learned counsel for the respondents. 7. In view of the fair concession extended by learned counsel for respondent No.2, this petition is allowed and Justice R.K.Nehru, former Judge of Jammu and Kashmir, is appointed as a sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties. In the meanwhile, the parties will exchange the statement of claims and response thereof. The statement of claim be supplied to counsel for the respondents within four weeks and response to the statement of claims shall be supplied to the counsel for the petitioner within four weeks thereafter. The parties shall appear before the Arbitrator on 27.05.2010 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 render the award not later than six months from the date of first appearance of the parties. (MUKUL MUDGAL) CHIEF JUSTICE 18.03.2010 'ravinder'