IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTYSIXTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Arbitration Application No.140 of 2010 Between: M/s. M. Anil Kumar ..Applicant AND M/s. BRG Energy Limited .. Respondent ORDER: An application under Section 11 (4) and (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 read with Para 3 (1) (c) of Scheme of Appointment of Arbitrators, 1996, for appointment of a sole Arbitrator for a decision on the disputes between the parties arising out of the work order dated 26-08-2008. The applicant’s case is that it is a proprietary concern engaged in the business of Civil and Electrical contract works since 2001 and the respondent Limited Company entered into a contract with the applicant for erection of three 33/11 K.V. Sub- stations and connected 33 & 11 KV lines in Karimnagar District under the letter of award dated 11-03-2008. A work order was accordingly placed with the applicant on 26-08-2008 in respect of Sub-stations at Kodimyal and Mallannapet in Karimnagar District. The work order was in respect of two sub-stations, though the applicant was ready to execute the work in three sub-stations as per the letter of award. The applicant has completed the civil works as per the work order except in the control room at Mallannapet Sub-station within the specified time and the respondent handed over only part of the electrical equipment for erection works, which were erected as and when handed over to the applicant. The entire civil and erection works at Kodimyal were completed by June 2009 and handed over to the respondent. The total value of the works done by the applicant was Rs.31,63,825/- towards which the respondent paid Rs.18,50,389/- from time to time. The balance of Rs.13,13,436/- was not paid in spite of demands and the balance civil work could not be undertaken by the applicant due to want of payment. The respondent received the bills for the entire work on 15-10-2009 and in spite of demands, the amount was not paid, but a false notice was given on 22-02-2010. The applicant gave a reply to pay the balance amount and as unnecessary disputes are being raised by the respondent, the applicant filed a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, in O.P.No.678 of 2010 before the III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in which an interim order of status quo was granted and finally the Court directed the respondent to lift the material and carry on the work and the Original Petition is still pending. Under the work order dated 26-08-2008, all disputes and differences in opinion arising out of the work order shall be the subject of arbitration within the jurisdiction of Hyderabad District, Andhra Pradesh. The arbitration clause was invoked by legal notice dated 14-04-2010 naming a sole Arbitrator, for which the respondent did not give any reply. Therefore, the application. Though notice of the application has been served on the respondent, none entered appearance on behalf of the respondent. Sri B. Chandrasen Reddy, learned counsel for the applicant is heard. It is evident from the arbitration clause in the work order dated 26-08-2008 that there was an arbitration agreement between the parties to settle all disputes and differences arising out of the work order only through an arbitrator within the Hyderabad jurisdiction. The arbitration clause was specifically invoked by the applicant by the legal notice dated 14-04-2010 and the material papers relating to O.P.No.678 of 2010 as well as the notices exchanged between the parties show that disputes and differences had arisen between the parties to the work order concerning the subject matter of the work done by the applicant. Therefore, such disputes and differences arising out of the work order amount to arbitrable disputes to be referred to a sole Arbitrator. In the absence of any response to the legal notice from the respondent and in the absence of any communication of any consent for the named Arbitrator, the applicant is justified in invoking the jurisdiction of this Court for appointment of a sole Arbitrator and the sole Arbitrator has to be appointed accordingly. Therefore, Sri G. Bhoopathi Reddy, retired District and Sessions Judge, H.No.2-2-1075/22, Bagh Amberpet, Hyderabad- 13 is appointed as the sole Arbitrator to adjudicate and decide the disputes and differences between the parties arising out of the work order dated 26-08-2008 and the learned Arbitrator shall render his award expeditiously in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The learned Arbitrator is at liberty to fix a reasonable remuneration/fee for the work done by him. The Arbitration Application is allowed accordingly without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 26-10-2010 Ksn