IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Civil Suit No. 82/2007 Decided on:5.10.2010 _____________________________________________ M/s Shah Construction Company. …Plaintiff. Versus M/s Parental Drugs (India) Limited and others. …Respondents. _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Plaintiff : Mr. P.C. Markanda, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Suneet Goel, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajnish Maniktala, Advocate. ____________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). Plaintiff has filed suit for recovery of sum of Rs. 2,51,09,604.00 along with interest @ 13% per annum from 9.8.2006 onwards. However, the learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the plaintiff and defendants have jointly represented that the matter can be referred to sole Arbitrator for deciding the same. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 2. Consequently, in view of the spirit of section 89 read with order 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Mr. S.K. Sharda, retired Chief Engineer is appointed as sole Arbitrator. Plaintiff is permitted to file claim petition before him within a period of three weeks from today and thereafter the defendants are at liberty to file written statement within two weeks. Thereafter plaintiff can file replication within another period of two weeks. Sole Arbitrator shall complete the proceedings and shall pass an award in accordance with law within a period of six months. He will take into consideration the salient features of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 while making an award. With the consent of the parties, sole Arbitrator is held entitled to a lump sum fee of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. One lakh) and Rs. 20,000/- for each hearing to be shared equally by the parties. It is made clear that in the event of the sole Arbitrator undertaking journey to Baddi, he will be held entitled to additional amount of Rs. 10,000/- towards transportation, boarding, lodging etc. 3. Accordingly, in view of above observations/ direction, the present suit is disposed of with a direction to 3 the Registry to refund the court fee to the plaintiff within a period of four weeks from today in accordance with law. OMP No. 305/2008 4. In view of the orders passed hereinabove, this application has become infructuous. The same is dismissed having become infructuous. 5. Copy Dasti on usual terms. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 5.10.2010 *awasthi*