HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA CHANDIGARH. *** Arbitration case No.10 of 2009. Date of Decision : February 15, 2010. *** M/S Aggarwal Builders Versus Nirvana Coop House Building (Ist) Society. *** 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: Shri Vishal Garg, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri Rajnish Narula, Advocate, for the respondents. *** Mukul Mudgal, CJ (Oral) This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of arbitrator based on the agreement dated 17.02.2007 to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties. At the time of preliminary hearing, counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the following clause of the agreement dated 17.2.2007:- ''Both the parties upon signing on offer and acceptance of the terms of the contract siege their rights for criminal or civil proceedings against each other. In case of any dispute the matter will be referred to arbitrator who will be of the rank of SE or any qualified engineer or above to be appointed by both the parties with mutual consent''. Upon notice, the respondents put in appearance and filed reply controverting the averments made in the petition. It is alleged that the agreement dated 17.02.2007 was substituted with subsequent agreement -2- Arbitration case No.10 of 2009. dated 2.11.2007, wherein there was no arbitration clause between the parties. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. Learned counsel for the respondent during the course of arguments placed reliance on the agreement dated 2.11.2007 (Annexure R-1), according to which there is no arbitration clause. The relevant clause of the agreement is as follows:- '' 5-.No escalation / arbitration will be allowed under any circumstances, by the contractor''. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the extension of time to complete the project was extended on the ground that no escalation/ arbitration would be claimed by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that subsequent agreement dated 2.11.2007 is in continuation of the agreement dated 17.02.2007 and both the agreements will have to be read in conjunction. According to him the original clause in the agreement dated 17.02.2007 for appointment of arbitrator still survives. I have considered and perused the two agreements and the relevant clauses. From a perusal of the two agreement, it is evident that the agreement dated 2.11.2007 relates to the extension of time to complete the project and the time was extended upto 23.03.2008 on the condition that no arbitration will be allowed. I am unable to agree with the plea of counsel for the petitioner, because the preamble of the agreement dated 2.11.2007 which only provides the extension of time and not the rates and the schedule, as contended by learned counsel for the petitioner. In this view of the matter, the arbitration application is devoid of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed. However, the dismissal of the -3- application will not come in the way of the petitioner to seek appropriate redress available to him under law. No costs. (Mukul Mudgal) February 15, 2010 Chief Justice Malik