IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Arb. Case No. 49 of2010 Date of decision: 25.5.2011 TIL Limited …..Petitioner vs. Punjab State Electricity Board and another …..Respondents CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: - Mr. Vikas Mohan Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Advocate for respondents. HEMANT GUPTA, J Petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court for appointment of an Arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the 'Act') in respect of the dispute arising between the parties out of an Agreement dated 12.5.2006. Vide the aforesaid Agreement, petitioner was to design, manufacture, test and supply one number of 40 M.T. Truck Mounted Mobile Crane (Model_TMS750B) at a cost of Rs. 1,48,20,401/-. The disputes arose between the parties. Such disputes are required to be decided in terms of the Arbitration Clause containing in the aforesaid Agreement which reads as under: - 11.0 Arbitration (i) If at any time any question, dispute or difference, what so ever, shall arise, between the Arb. Case No. 49 of 2010 Purchaser/Board and the Supplier/Company, upon or in relation to or in connection with the Purchaser Order/Contract, either party may forthwith give to the other, notice in written of the existence of such question, dispute or difference and the same shall be referred for Sole Arbitration of a nominee of the Purchaser/Board, who shall give a reasoned/speaking award. The award of the Sole Arbitrator shall be final and binding on the parties under the provisions of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 and of the rules there-under. Any statutory amendment, modification or re- enactment thereof for the time being in force, shall be deemed to apply to and be incorporated in this Contract/Purchase Order. It will not be objectionable. If the Sole Arbitrator is an Officer of the Board and he has expressed his vies on all or any of the matters in question of dispute or difference. The petitioner has sought appointment of an Arbitrator vide the communication dated 29.12.2008 (Annexure P-12). It was thereafter the respondents issued a communication dated 22.10.2009 (Annexure P-13) through which the order of purchase of the crane was cancelled. Since, the Arbitrator was not appointed, the petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of this Court. In reply, it is pointed out that the crane supplied by the petitioner was not as per the technical parameters of the purchase order and a committee was appointed to examine the entire issues and suggest appropriate corrective and punitive measures. Therefore, the Board has specifically rejected the proposal of accepting the crane supplied by the 2 Arb. Case No. 49 of 2010 petitioner. Subsequently, the said crane has been returned to the petitioner along with its spares. The dispute between the parties is now in respect of the security amount, sales tax and the damages in the alleged violation of the Agreement. Since, the respondents have failed to appoint the Arbitrator within one month of raising of such demand therefore, Sh. M.L.Malhotra, District and Sessions Judge (Retd.) resident of H. No. 195-B, Sewak Colony, Patiala is appointed as an Arbitrator. Learned Arbitrator may fix his fee with the consultation of the parties with liberty to the parties to seek clarifications, if any required, from this Court. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 25.5.2011 preeti 3