Arb. Case No.60 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (1) Arb. Case No.60 of 2011 Date of decision:-18.08.2011 A2Z Maintenance & Engineering Services Limited .......Petitioner Versus Punjab State Power Corporation Limited. .......Respondent (2) Arb. Case No.61 of 2011 A2Z Maintenance & Engineering Services Limited .......Petitioner Versus Punjab State Power Corporation Limited .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BEL MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Mr. Kunal Dawar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Deepak Balyan, Advocate for the respondent. HEMANT GUPTA, J(ORAL) This order shall dispose of afore-mentioned two cases raising identical question of law and facts. However, for facility of reference, the facts are taken from Arbitration Case No.60 of 2011. The petitioner has sought appointment of an Arbitrator in respect of disputes arising out of the agreement dated 25.10.2007. Vide aforesaid agreement, the petitioner was awarded contract of supply of material, its erection, testing and commissioning of new 6.3/10/16/25 KVA distribution Transformers. The dispute arose between the parties. The petitioner served a notice dated 18.01.2011 Arb. Case No.60 of 2011 -2- (Annexure P-2) for appointment of an Arbitrator. Since the Arbitrator was not appointed, the petitioner filed the present petition before this Court seeking appointment of an Arbitrator on 18.04.2011. Notice of the present petition was issued on 21.04.2011 for 25.05.2011. But in the meantime, the respondent has appointed Er. N.S. Matharu, Chief Engineer/ARR &TR, PSPCI, Patiala as an Arbitrator on 25.04.2011. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Arbitrator has been appointed after the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court, therefore in terms of Datar Switchgears Ltd. Vs. Tata Finance Ltd and another (2000) 8 SCC 151 , the respondent has forfeited its rights to appoint an arbitrator. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I do not find that appointment of an Arbitrator by the respondent on 25.04.2001 can be said to be unwarranted, which may lead to appointment of another Arbitrator by this Court. Though the respondent should have appointed an Arbitrator within 30 days of the receipt of the demand to seek resolution of the dispute by an Arbitrator and in any case before invoking the jurisdiction of this Court, by the petitioner. But the fact remains that the respondent has appointed an Arbitrator, even before the notice of the petition was served upon the respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any special circumstance which may lead to an inference that the Arbitrator appointed may not be fair and impartial Arbitrator. In view of the said fact, I do not find any ground to exercise the jurisdiction of this Court for an appointment of another Arbitrator. Dismissed. 18.08.2011 (HEMANT GUPTA) Jyoti 1 JUDGE