IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Arbitration Case No. 80 of 2009 Date of Decision: 14.12.2009 Cable Tech. Machines CTM House ..Petitioner Versus The Chairman & DGOF, Ordinance Factory Board. ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. 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 : Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. M.S.Cheema, Central Govt. Standing Counsel, for the respondents. ***** MUKUL MUDGAL, C.J. (Oral) This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ' the Act), for appointment of sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. Clause 16(s) of the agreement contains the Arbitration Clause which reads as under:- a) All the disputes and differences arising out of or in any way touching or concerning this agreement (except those for which specific provision has been made therein) shall be referred to Sole Arbitrator to be appointed by Arbitration Case No. 80 of 2009 [2] Director General Ordinance Factories, Government of India. The Arbitrator so appointed shall be a Government Servant who had not dealt with the matters to which this agreement relates and in course of his duties had not expressed views on all or any of the matter in disputes or differences for the time being or a Govt. Servant appointed by him the appointee shall not be Govt. Servant who had dealt with the matters to which this agreement relates and that in the course of his duties as Govt. Servant he had not expressed views on all or any of the matter in dispute or difference. The Award of the Sole Arbitrator shall be final and binding on the parties.” Owing to a dispute arrived at between the parties, the petitioner invoked the arbitration clause vide letter dated 2.5.2009 which was duly received in the office of the respondents as is evident from registered AD Annexure P-16. Learned counsel for the respondents has filed reply wherein they have taken a stand that though the petitioner has approached this Court without invoking the arbitration clause, but the respondents are ready to appoint an Arbitrator as per arbitration clause of the contract signed between the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner accepts the offer made by the respondents. Accordingly in view of the averments made by the respondents in para No.6 of the reply, this petition is disposed of with a direction that an Arbitrator shall be appointed by the respondents but not later than 12.01.2010. The parties shall appear before the appointed Arbitrator on 15.01.2010 at 10.00 A.M. In the meanwhile, the petitioner will supply the statement of claim to the respondents within Arbitration Case No. 80 of 2009 [3] two weeks from today and the response thereto shall be supplied to the petitioner within four weeks thereafter. The Arbitrator shall dispose of the reference not later than six months from the date of filing of the reply by the respondent to the claim of the petitioner. The name of the Arbitrator shall be communicated to the counsel for the petitioner by the counsel for the respondents. A copy of the order shall be given dasti to learned counsel for both the parties under the signature of the Bench Secretary. (MUKUL MUDGAL) CHIEF JUSTICE 14.12.2009 'ravinder'