IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Arb. Case No.45 of 2008 Date of decision : May 21, 2010 M/s Gurcharan Industries …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. J.S. Bhogal, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Tarunjeet Singh Bhogal, Advocate, For the Respondents : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) Petitioner has approached the Hon’ble Chief Justice for appointment of an Arbitrator, by making the present petition, under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The matter has come before me, as I have been designated by the Hon’ble Chief Justice to exercise his powers, under Section 11 of the Act. 2. Tenders were invited by the respondents for executing certain work. Petitioner also submitted a tender, which was accepted, vide letter dated 1st December, 2001, Annexure C-2. Thereafter, respondents did not cooperate with the petitioner, nor did they do anything to facilitate the execution of the work by the petitioner. Petitioner, therefore, claimed damages and requested the respondents to refer his Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… claim for damages to the Arbitrator. Respondents rejected the prayer of the petitioner, for referring the matter to the Arbitrator, on the ground that there was no written agreement between the parties. 3. A Division Bench of this Court in State of H.P. & another versus H.K. Sareen, OSA No.27 of 1999, decided on 8th December, 2009, has held that where a tender submitted by a party is accepted by the party floating the tenders, acceptance of tender concludes the agreement and the tender and the letter of acceptance are the documents of such agreement. Therefore, objection raised by the respondents that there was no completed agreement between the parties is not sustainable. 4. Tender contains arbitration clause. In terms of the arbitration clause, the Arbitrator, in the event of a dispute between the parties, was to be appointed by the Engineer-in- Chief/Chief Engineer. They having failed to appoint an Arbitrator, despite demand by the petitioner, on a ground, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law, the petition is allowed and Shri Ramakant Sharma, Advocate, is appointed as Arbitrator. His fees, inclusive of stationery and other charges, is fixed at Rs.25,000/-, which shall initially be paid by the petitioner and the matter regarding liability to pay such fees shall be finally determined by the Arbitrator himself. Petition stands disposed of. May 21, 2010(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J