HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.10015 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 25.03.2011 **** M/s. Unitech Limited . . . . Petitioner VS. Chandigarh Admn. & Anr. . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. Vikas Bahl, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Sanjay Kaushal, Sr.Standing Counsel, UT Chd. With Mr. Sanjiv Ghai, Advocate for the respondents ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner-Company is aggrieved by the order dated 21.05.2010 (Annexure P29) leading to the termination of the agreement dated 06.12.2006 earlier entered into between the parties pertaining to the Development of Theme-cum- Amusement Park in UT Chandigarh. (2). Having been apprised that the dispute(s) arising out of the Development Agreement are to be resolved through arbitration as stipulated by Article 22 of the said Agreement. Ld. Counsel for the parties have agreed to have recourse to the arbitral clause. (3). Counsel for the parties, on instructions, inform that since both the parties are to appoint one Arbitrator each, Hon’ble CWP No.10015 of 2010.doc - 2 – Mr. Justice (Retd.) R.K. Nehru, a former Judge of this Court shall be the Arbitrator on behalf of the petitioner whereas the respondent-Administration shall be represented by Hon’ble Mr. Justice (Retd.) V.S. Aggarwal, also a former Judge of the Delhi and this High Court. (4). So far as the third Arbitrator is concerned, learned counsel for the parties jointly suggest the name of Hon’ble Mr. Justice (Retd.) Mukul Mudgal, Former Chief Justice of this High Court. Let there be a joint request by the parties in this regard, however, in the event of non-availability of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mukul Mudgal, Former Chief Justice of this Court, both the Arbitrators are requested to appoint the third Arbitrator in terms of Article 22(3) of the Development Agreement. It needs to be mentioned here that the venue of the arbitration proceedings shall be at Chandigarh only as per Clause (4) of Article 22 of the Agreement. (5). Regarding the terms and conditions of appointment of the Arbitrators, I leave it open for the parties to settle their respective terms and conditions and if so acceptable, keeping in view the guidelines laid down by this Court in the Arbitration Case No.128 of 2007 titled as Rakesh Kumar Garg v. M/s. Vipul Ltd. decided on 23.09.2009. (6). The learned Arbitrators are requested to resolve the dispute expeditiously and subject to their convenience, preferably 2 CWP No.10015 of 2010.doc - 3 – within a period of four months from the date of composition of the Arbitral panel. (7). Till then, the respondents are directed not to create any third party rights. (8). Ordered accordingly. Dasti. 25.03.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge 3