Arbitration Case No.56 of 2007 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Arbitration Case No.56 of 2007 Date of Decision: 21 - 04 - 2008 Madhukar Mittal ....Petitioner through Mr.V.K.Jindal , Advocate v. Haryana State Agricultural Marketing ....Respondents Board and another through Mr.S.S.Duhan, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VIJENDER JAIN, CHIEF JUSTICE *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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? *** VIJENDER JAIN, CHIEF JUSTICE (ORAL) In this petition, the arbitration clause is admitted between the parties. However, the only argument raised by counsel for the respondents is that after the payment of Rs.1,32,098/- made on 11.11.2004, the petitioner had not raised any dispute. I am afraid that argument of learned counsel for the respondents is without any basis. The total claim raised by the petitioner was Rs.4,72,480/- as per letter dated 2.1.2004, Annexure A-8 issued on 21.7.2004 to the respondents. Arbitration Case No.56 of 2007 [2] The respondents had made the payment of Rs.1,32,098/- only. The plea taken by the respondents that full and final payment had been made, cannot be accepted. The petitioner made the claim on 21.7.2004 followed by reminder dated 21.9.2004 and non payment of the full amount is a dispute which has to be referred to the arbitration. In spite of aforesaid letters, neither any payment was made by the respondents nor any reply was sent. Therefore, without going into the merits of the controversy, let all the disputes including the dispute regarding limitation be referred to the Arbitrator. The respondents are directed to appoint the Arbitrator in terms of the arbitration clause within a period of four weeks. Petition stands disposed of. ( VIJENDER JAIN ) April 21, 2008 CHIEF JUSTICE RC