IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Arbitration Case No. 55 of 2009 Date of Decision: 12.01.2010 M/s Manjit Singh Contractor ..Petitioner Versus Union of India 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. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present :- Mr. P.S.Rana, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Puneet Jindal, Advocate, for the respondents. *** MUKUL MUDGAL, C.J. (Oral) This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ' the Act), for appointment of sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. The arbitration clause provides for appointment of two Arbitrators of equal status of the Railway Gazetted Officers. Clause 64 of the contract contains the Arbitration Clause which reads as under:- “ 64. Demand for Arbitration:- (1) (i) In the event of any dispute or difference between the parties hereto as to the construction or operation of this contract or the Arbitration Case No. 55 of 2009 [2] respective rights and liabilities of the parties on any matter in question dispute or difference on any account or as to the withholding by the Railway of any certificate to which the contractor may claim to be entitled to or if the Railway fails to make a decision within a reasonable time then and in any such case save the excepted matters referred to in clause 63 of these conditions the contractor after 90 days but within 180 days of his presenting his final claim on disputed matters shall demand in writing that the dispute or difference be referred to arbitration. ii) The demand for arbitration shall specify the matters which are in question dispute or difference. Only such dispute(s) or difference(s) in respect of which the demand has been made shall be referred to arbitration and other matters shall not be included in the reference. iii) If the contractor(s) does/do not prefer his/their specific and final claims in writing within a period of 90 days of receiving the intimation from the Government that the final bill is ready for payment, he/they will be deemed to have waived his/their claim(s) and the railway shall be discharged and released of all liabilities under the contract in respect of these claims. It is not in dispute that two Arbitrators and one Umpire/Presiding Arbitrator have already been appointed by the respondents. However, there is some dispute with respect to the delay Arbitration Case No. 55 of 2009 [3] in disposal of arbitration proceedings from both the sides. The petitioner is stating that delay is due to the frequent transfer of the Arbitrators by the respondents whereas respondents contended that petitioner has been delaying by not cooperating in the proceedings. Without going into the veracity of rival submissions made by both the parties, since two Arbitrators and one Umpire/Presiding Arbitrator have been appointed by the respondents, I am of the view that if there is further delay, loss by way of interest may be caused to the State exchequer in case of an adverse award. Even the claimants would be interested in an early resolution of the dispute. The said Arbitrators, therefore, are directed to conclude the proceedings and pronounce the award not later than 30.5.2010. All parties are directed to co-operate and not prolong proceedings. Respondent-Railway is directed to ensure that either the Arbitrators are not transferred and if exigencies of the services requires transfer, the said Arbitrators are made available on the date fixed for the arbitration proceedings. With the aforesaid directions, the petition stands disposed of. A copy of the order shall be given dasti to Mr. Jindal for compliance under the signature of the Bench Secretary. (MUKUL MUDGAL) CHIEF JUSTICE 12.01.2010 'ravinder'