Arbitration Case No. 266 of 2006 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Arbitration Case No. 266 of 2006 Date of Decision: 30.01.2009 Anurag Krishan ..Petitioner Versus Chandigarh Housing Board ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.THAKUR,CHIEF 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. Sanjiv Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Jagdish Marwah, Advocate for the respondent. ***** T.S.Thakur, C.J. (Oral) The parties entered into an agreement dated 10.11.1987, in terms whereof, the petitioner was supposed to undertake burning of bricks at Kiln No. 1 owned by respondent-Chandigarh Housing Board in village Mauli-Jagran at the outskirts of Chandigarh city. It is unnecessary for us to set out in detail the nature and extent of work, to be undertaken by the petitioner in terms of the said agreement. What is important is that as per Clause 25-A of the agreement, any question, difference or objection, whatsoever, arising between the parties, in connection with the agreement or the meaning or operation of any part thereof or the rights, duties or Arbitration Case No. 266 of 2006 [2] liabilities of either party, was to be referred to the sole arbitration of the Chief Engineer, Chandigarh Housing Board, Chandigarh for adjudication whose decision was to be final and binding upon the parties. Disputes between the parties, it appears, did arise during the execution of the work, for a reference whereof the petitioner appears to have made a request in terms of a notice dated 25.03.1997 sent through his Advocate Shri P.K.Kukreja. Since the Board did not respond to the said notice, the petitioner filed Arbitration Application No. 17 before the Senior Sub Judge, Chandigarh, seeking a direction to the respondent-Board, to refer the matters in dispute to an independent Arbitrator if the Board failed to make a reference to the nominated Arbitrator. The said petition, was subsequently transferred to this Court and registered as Arbitration Case No. 266 of 2006. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Clause 25-A which constitute the Arbitration Agreement between the parties reads as under:- “If any question, difference or objection whatsoever shall arise in any way connected with or arising out of this instrument or the meaning or operation of any part thereof or the rights, duties or liabilities of either party, then save in so far as the decision of any such matter is hereinbefore provided for and has been so decided every such matter including whether its decision has been otherwise provided for and/or whether it has been finally decided accordingly, or whether the contract should be terminated or has been rightly terminated and as regards the rights and obligations of the parties as the result of such termination shall be referred for arbitration to the Chairman, Chandigarh Housing Board or his Arbitration Case No. 266 of 2006 [3] authorised nominee. Chandigarh or acting as such at the time of reference within 180 days, viz. six months from the date making final payment to the contractor or when the contractor is not willing to receive the payment from the date a registered notice is sent to him that his final Bill. (sic) is ready for payment and his decision shall be final and binding and where the matter involves a claim for the payment or recovery or deduction of money, only the amount, if any awarded in such arbitration shall be recoverable in respect of the matter so referred. If the matter is not referred to arbitration within the specified period, all the rights and claims under the contract shall be deemed to have been forfeited and absolutely barred.” It is evident from a plain reading of the above that in the event of any question, difference or objection arising between the parties in relation to the rights, duties or liabilities of either one of them, the same are to be adjudicated upon by the sole arbitration of the Chief Engineer, Chandigarh Housing Board. Mr. Marwah, learned counsel appearing for the Board, also did not dispute that position. What was contended by him was that the claim made by the petitioner was barred by limitation. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, contended, and in my opinion rightly so, that the issue whether the claim made by the petitioner or any part thereof was barred by limitation, could itself be left to be determined by the nominated Arbitrator. All that this Court is called upon to examine is, whether there is any arbitration agreement between the parties and whether disputes that have arisen between them are arbitrable. Answers to both these questions are in the affirmative. In the light of Clause 25-A (supra), the existence of an arbitration clause, cannot be Arbitration Case No. 266 of 2006 [4] disputed, nor was it disputed before me by learned counsel appearing for the respondent. The fact that the disputes are arbitrable in terms of the arbitration clause is also evident from the pleadings of the parties. The question whether any of the disputes or claims made by the petitioner is within or beyond the period of limitation is, however a matter on which this Court need not express any opinion as that issue would also call for determination by the Arbitrator. In the result, I allow this petition and refer the disputes between the parties to the Chief Engineer, Chandigarh Housing Board, who shall enter upon the reference and make an Award in accordance with law expeditiously. The question whether any part of the claim made by the petitioner is within or beyond the period of limitation prescribed for the same, is left open to the Arbitrator for determination. The Arbitrator shall be free to fix his fee and the manner in which the same shall be payable by the parties. Parties to appear before the Arbitrator on 16.03.2009. (T.S.THAKUR) CHIEF JUSTICE 30.01.2009 'ravinder'