IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA REQ. CASE No.25 of 2009 M/s Super Refrigeration Works, S.P. Verma Road, Opposite Sukriti Apartment, through its Proprietor Irshad Alam, son of Late Abdul Hannan, resident of Mohalla Alamganj Agrawal Tola, P.S. Alamganj, District Patna. ……………….……….Petitioner. Versus 1. M/s Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Bihar, 2nd Floor, North Block C.T.O. Building, Budha Marg, Patna-1 through the General Manager, Maintenance, Eastern Telecom Region, Patna. 2. The Divisional Engineer(Technical) O/o The GMM ,ETR, Patna on behalf of B.S.N.L. 3. The Deputy General Manager, Maintenance, E.T.R., B.S.N.L, Patna. ……..Respondents. For the petitioner : Mr. Anil Kumar Dwivedi, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. J.P. Karn, Sr.Advocate. ----------- 03/ 02.07.2010 This petition has been filed by the petitioner, which is a contractor dealing with refrigeration and air conditioning works, for appointment of an Arbitrator under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to settle the dispute of payment of some of the bills for the work done by the petitioner pursuant to the agreement dated 28.06.2006 (Annexure-1) between the petitioner and the respondents. The work order was for Rs.1,90,381.00 + Bank Guarantee of Rs.45,000.00 and Security Money of Rs.15,000.00. From the arguments and the materials on record, it is quite apparent that Clause 18 of agreement dated 28.06.2006 provides that the sole Arbitrator for the said agreement shall be CGMM, ETR, Kolkata or any officer/person appointed by him. It is not in dispute that there was an agreement between the parties and there is some dispute with regard to compliance of the said 2 agreement due to which legal notice dated 24.01.2009 was sent by the petitioner to the respondents who replied on 15.04.2009 (Annexure-2) referring two Clauses 17 and 18 of the said agreement. Thereafter in reply to the said reply the petitioner sent a notice through Advocate on 15.05.2009 in which it was specifically stated that if there was any problem to settle the pending bills, the matter be referred to the Arbitrator as per Clause 17 and 18 of the agreement after informing the petitioner in this regard. However, the said communication by the petitioner dated 15.05.2009 remained unreplied and hence the petitioner was constrained to file the instant case on 22.12.2009. Considering the respective arguments of the parties as well as the materials on record, it is quite apparent that there is an agreement with an arbitral clause and there is a dispute with regard to payment of amount as per the agreement and hence CGMM, ETR, Kolkata is appointed Arbitrator as per the terms of the agreement. Both the parties may appear before the said Arbitrator for settlement of the aforesaid dispute within two weeks along with a copy of this order so that the said Arbitrator may proceed in accordance with law expeditiously. However, if in the meantime respondents pay the aforesaid amount to the petitioner, the matter may not be sent to the Arbitrator. With the aforesaid directions/observations this request case is disposed of. harish/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )