Civil Revision No. 368 of 2005 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 368 of 2005 (O&M) Date of decision: March 29, 2010 J.R. Electrician and another .. Petitioners v. Union of India and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Naresh Parbhakar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Puneet Jindal, Advocate for the respondents. .. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 4.12.2004, passed by the learned court below, whereby the petition filed by the petitioners under Section 8 and 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, `the Act') for appointment of the Arbitrator, was dismissed. Briefly, the facts are that respondent No. 2 invited tenders for execution of work of approximate cost of Rs. 8,00,000/-. The tenders were to be opened on 25.1.1995 and the work was to be completed within a period of eight months from the date of acceptance of the contract. The tender of the petitioners was accepted and agreement dated 1.3.1995 was duly executed. After the completion of the contract, a dispute sought to be raised by the petitioners with respect to the balance payment due. The respondents refused to appoint the Arbitrator, as prayed for by the petitioners. Ultimately, the petitioners filed petition before the learned court below, which was dismissed vide impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the learned court below, while exercising the powers under the Act, was required to appoint the Arbitrator once the matter is brought before it pointing out that there was arbitration clause in the agreement signed between the parties and on the request of one of the parties, the other had failed to appoint the Arbitrator. He further submitted that the issue as to whether there is some dispute or not has to be gone into by the Arbitrator, as the court cannot look at the merits of the controversy as Civil Revision No. 368 of 2005 [2] the same fall within the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator. It was further submitted that blank documents got signed from the petitioners will not debar them from claiming amount by invoking the arbitration proceedings. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioners in the present case had settled their account with the respondents and signed the bills and the payments in full and final settlement. Thereafter, there was no grouse pending with the petitioners for moving an application for appointment of the Arbitrator. The learned court below has rightly rejected the prayer made, as unless the court comes to the conclusion that there is some dispute pending between the parties, the matter could not be referred for arbitration. Reliance was placed upon National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. M/s Boghara Polyfab Pvt. Ltd., AIR 2009 SC 170, Union of India and others v. Onkar Nath Bhalla and Sons, (2009) 7 SCC 350 and Arbitration Case No. 24 of 2005—M/s Mittal Construction Co. v. Union of India and others, decided on 20.3.2007. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. The issue, which is required to be considered in the present case is as to whether there exists a dispute between the parties, the resolution of which is to be made through the appointment of an Arbitrator or the court can direct appointment of an Arbitrator even if there exists no dispute. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Onkar Natha Bhalla's case (supra) had opined that the court without considering the factum of any existing dispute between the parties could not appoint an Arbitrator. In the present case, as has been noticed by the learned court below and evident from a perusal of the documents which were produced before the court below, the petitioners had admitted that they had received the amount, which was calculated by the respondents and even their security was also refunded at the time of finalisation of the contract, for which they had signed the relevant register. The respondents produced RW1- Amrik Singh, Assistant Engineer Workshop, who stated that after the completion of the work, due payment was made to the petitioners in full and final settlement of their account, which was accepted by the petitioners as correct. The documents, which were produced before the court below, were shown by the respondents at the time of hearing and it was found that in the measurement book, where details regarding work executed by the petitioners had been noted and the amount calculated, the petitioners had signed the same as accepted. Once that is so, the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners that they were made to sign on some blank documents is not made out, as a perusal of the documents shows that the same was signed after it was filled in. Once the payment was received as full Civil Revision No. 368 of 2005 [3] and final settlement, there existed no dispute, for the settlement of which the petitioners could pray for appointment of an Arbitrator. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any merit in the present petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge March 29, 2010 mk