Arbitration Case No.124 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Arbitration Case No.124 of 2009 Date of decision : 9.11.2010 M/s Vipul Ltd. .....Petitioner Versus M/s R.P.Empires Pvt. Ltd. and others ...Respondents **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKUL MUDGAL, CHIEF JUSTICE 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Rohit Sood, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Ruchi Sekhri, Advocate for respondent no.6. MUKUL MUDGAL,C.J. (Oral) This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 ( for short 'the Act'), for appointment of third Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties. It is not in dispute between the parties that procedure for appointment of third Arbitrator has been provided in Clause 7.2 of the agreement which is to the following effect:- “In the case of any dispute, controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this Agreement or the breach, termination or invalidity thereof, the parties agree that such dispute, controversy or claim shall be settled by arbitration in New Delhi in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as it present in force. The arbitral tribunal shall consist of a panel of three independent arbitrators two of which shall be nominated by each of the disputing parties and a third arbitrator shall be nominated jointly by the arbitrators so Arbitration Case No.124 of 2009 -2- appointed by the disputing parties. The language to be used in the arbitral proceedings shall be English. The award given by the arbitral tribunal shall be binding on the parties.” It is not in dispute that both the parties have appointed their respective Arbitrators. The third Arbitrator, as per Clause 7.2 of the agreement has to be appointed jointly by the Arbitrators so appointed by the disputing parties, but as per case set up by the petitioner, both the Arbitrators so appointed by the parties are not agreeing upon any name to be appointed as third Arbitrator so as to complete the Tribunal. No reply to the petition has been filed by the respondents to rebut the averments set up in the petition nor any reason has been shown at the bar for not agreeing to any name to be appointed as third Arbitrator. In these circumstances, this Court has left with no option but to appoint Justice R.C.Chopra, former Judge of Delhi High Court as third Arbitrator so as to complete the Tribunal for adjudicating of the dispute between the parties. In the meanwhile, the parties will exchange the statements of claim and response thereof. The statement of claim be supplied to counsel for the respondent within four weeks and response to the statement of claim shall be supplied to the counsel for the petitioner within four weeks thereafter. The parties shall appear before the Arbitral Tribunal on 21.1.2011 or on an agreed date convenient to the parties but not later than a fortnight from the date of exchange of pleadings as directed aforesaid. The Arbitral Tribunal shall dispose of the reference not later than six months from the date of first appearance of the parties. With these direction this petition is disposed of. November 09, 2010 (Mukul Mudgal) Pka Chief Justice Arbitration Case No.124 of 2009 -3-