IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Arb. Case No. 87 of 2010 Date of decision 7.4.2011 Sardar Balwant Singh ……petitioner Vs. The State of Punjab and ors ……respondents CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: - Mr. Gaurav Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.S. Thiara, Addl. AG, Punjab Hemant Gupta, J Petitioner has sought appointment of an Arbitrator in respect of the dispute between the parties arising out of a contract of construction of six barracks in Maximum Security Jail, Naba, District, Patiala vide the letter dated 31.10.1995. It is the case of the petitioner that the total value of the work was Rs. 85.00 lacs whereas a sum of Rs. 2, 84,258/-has not been paid to the petitioner for which the petitioner has served a legal notice on 14.2.2002. Since the payment was not made, petitioner filed a civil suit for injunction on 9.12.2003. The said suit was dismissed by learned trial Court on 18.4.2006. The petitioner again filed an appeal which was dismissed on 14.10.2006 but in RSA No. 1038 of 2008, the petitioner was granted liberty to approach the Arbitrator for redressal of his grievance vide the order dated 24.2.2009. It is thereafter, the petitioner served a legal notice dated 23.3.2009 and sought appointment of an Arbitrator. Since, the Arbitrator was not appointed within 30 days, the petitioner approached this court for appointment of an Arbitrator. Arb Case No. 87 of 2010 In the reply, the respondents has stated that the petitioner was called upon to complete the work vide the communication dated 5.9.2002, 25.9.2003 and 6.4.2004 but the petitioner has not completed the works and removed the defects. It is pointed that the petitioner was required to avail arbitration proceedings within a period of six months from the date of final bill. The payments were made to the petitioner prior to the year 2002 but the petitioner has not approached the respondents for arbitration proceedings within time frame of six months. Consequently, the petitioner cannot seek appointment of an Arbitrator from this Court. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, it transpires that as per the averments made in the written statement, payments were made to the petitioner prior to the year 2002 but the fact remains that in the year 2003 vide the letters dated 25.9.2003 and 6.4.2004, the Respondents have called upon the petitioner to remove the defects. The petitioner has filed the Civil Suit for mandatory injunction claiming payment of the amount due to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner was not sleeping over his right but asserting his right may be before the wrong forum. Since, the claim of amount of Rs. 2,84,258/- is being resisted by the respondents, therefore, such disputes are required to be adjudicated upon by an Arbitrator. In view there of, Shri B. R. Gupta, Additonal District and Sessions Judge (Retd) resident of H. No. 587, Sector 8, Chandigarh is appointed as an Arbitrator to decide the dispute in respect of the claim of Rs. 2,84,258/- Learned Arbitrator shall be entitled to fee of Rs. 30,000/- which shall be paid by the petitioner in the first instance. In the event, any amount found payable by respondents, the same shall form part of 2 Arb Case No. 87 of 2010 the cost of the proceedings in such ratio, as the Arbitrator deems fit and proper. Disposed of in the above terms. [HEMANT GUPTA] JUDGE 7.4.2011 preeti 3