PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT, CHANDIGARH. *** Arbitration Case No. 74 of 2009 Date of decision: February 18, 2010. *** M/S Jitco Overseas Projects Vs. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitron Nigam *** Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mukul Mudgal, Chief Justice. *** Present: Shri Puneet Bali,Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri Narinder Hooda,Advocate, for the respondents. *** Mukul Mudgal, CJ (Oral) By filing the instant petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the petitioner has craved the indulgence of this Court for appointment of an Arbitrator in terms of clause 51 of the contract in question. Upon notice of motion, the respondents put in appearance and filed reply controverting the grounds taken by the petitioners. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance perused the record. The arbitration clause 51 of the contract agreement reads as follows:- ''51-Arbitration- All matters, question, disputes, differences and/or claims arising out of and/or concerning and/or in connection and/or in consequences or relating to this Contract whether or not obligations of either of both parties under this Contract be subsisting at the time of such dispute and whether or not this Contract has been terminated or purported to be terminated or completed, shall be referred to the Mutually Agreed Arbitrator under Indian Arbitration Act, 1996. The award of the Arbitrator shall be final and binding on the parties to this Contract''. Learned counsel for the respondents pointed out that an arbitrator has already been appointed. Learned counsel for the petitioner -2- Arbitration Case No. 74 of 2009 has submitted that as per terms and conditions of the agreement, there was provision for appointment of a mutually agreed arbitrator. It is not disputed that the arbitrator suggested by the respondents had not been agreed upon by the petitioner and therefore the requirement of mutually agreed arbitrator is not satisfied. In this view of the matter since the parties are not agreeable to appoint an arbitrator in terms of clause 51 of the agreement, therefore, exercising the powers conferred under Section 11(6) of the Act, which is extracted below, this Court is required to appoint an Arbitrator. Section 11-. Appointment of arbitrators.-(1) X X X X X X (2)x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x xx x x x x x x x x x x x x x (3) x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x (4) x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x (5) x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x (6) Where, under an appointment procedure agreed upon by the parties,- (a) x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x (b) x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x © x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x a party may request the Chief Justice or any person or institution designated by him to take the necessary measure, unless the agreement on the appointment procedure provides other means for securing the appointment''. Accordingly, I appoint Shri Justice K.C.Gupta (Retd.) In the meanwhile the parties will exchange the statements of claim and response thereto. The statement of claim be supplied to counsel for the respondents within four weeks and response to the statement of claim shall be supplied to the counsel for the petitioner within four weeks thereafter. The parties shall appear before the Arbitrator on 21.05.2010 or on an agreed date convenient to the parties but not later than a fortnight from 21.05.2010 after -3- Arbitration Case No. 74 of 2009 exchange of pleadings as directed aforesaid. The Arbitrator shall make an endeavour to dispose of the reference as early as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of appearance of the parties before him. With these directions, the petition stands disposed of. February 18, 2010 (MUKUL MUDGAL) Malik CHIEF JUSTICE