Arb.P. 22/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking appointment of an Arbitra tor pursuant to an agreement dated 28/3/2008 for commissioned programmes. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, there was some dispute between the parties with regard to the furnishing of a Bank guarantee by the pet itioner in favour of the respondents. According to the respondent, the bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner was fake and accordingly a first information report was lodged against the petitione r alleging fraud. It appears that due to this alleged fake bank guarantee, the a greement between the parties was terminated by the respondents. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner sent a letter dated 31/3/2009 praying for the appointment of an Arbitrator. In the letter, it is stated that there is a pending court case (Geetanagar P.S. Case No. 122/2008 under sections 468/471 o f IPC) concerning the bank guarantee. It is also stated that the court case is l ikely to take time to get into the final stage and that the petitioner would lik e to resolve the controversy. Under the circumstances, the petitioner requested for the appointment of an Arbitrator in terms of clause 14 of the Agreement. The letter dated 31/3/2009 sent by the petitioner to the respondents reads as fo llows:- Dated: Guwahati the 31st March/2009 subject: Prayer for appointment of an Arbitrator in the matter concerning the ba nk guarantee and disbursement of advance between the M/s Nest Video Editing Pvt. Ltd. and Doordarshan, (PPC(NE) and DDK, Guwahati.) Respected Sir, In apropos to the subject drawn above the undersigned hereby place before you th e followings for kind information and necessary action thereon: That- a court case, (Geetanagar P.S. Case No. 122/08 us 468/471 of the IPC) conc erning the Bank Guarantee submitted by the undersigned and the disbursement made to the undersigned by Doordarshan, (PPC(NE) and DDK, Guwahati.) for production of programmes under the NE Commissioned programmes, 2007-2008 is taking its own course at Guwahati. That- the aforesaid case in the court of law may take much time to get the final stage. The undersigned is very keen in resolving the whole matter as soon as po ssible within a specific time limit. Therefore, the undersigned hereby request your kindness to appoint an Arbitrator as per the clause 14 of the ’Agreement’ to resolve the matter within a stipulat ed time with provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Looking forward for your kind consideration. With regards, Balindrajit Pathak, Producer & Director A perusal of the above the letter makes it quite clear that in fact no d ispute or difference has been specifically referred to by the petitioner. All th at is stated in the letter is that a court case is pending which may take time t o get into the final stage and, therefore, the petitioner was keen that the matt er be resolved. It is obvious that the respondents cannot resolve a matter which is pending in a court of law. I, therefore, find the claim of the petitioner for the appointmen t of an Arbitrator on this ground not maintainable. The petition is without any merit and it is dismissed.