Arbitration Case No. 61 of 2008 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Arbitration Case No. 61 of 2008 Date of Decision: 6.2.2009 M/s Charanji Lal ......Petitioner Versus Bharti Mobile Limited .......Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta. Present: None for the petitioner. Shri Sumeet Goyal, Advocate, for the respondent. HEMANT GUPTA, J (Oral). The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court for appointment of an Arbitrator, in respect of a dispute arising out of the distributorship agreement dated 18.7.2003. As per the aforesaid agreement, the petitioner claims to have been allowed to sell the products of the respondent and to provide service to various subscribers of the respondent in Jagraon, District Ludhiana. The petitioner, on 29.3.2006, communicated that it cannot continue as a distributor of the respondent and requested the respondent to settle the claim of the petitioner. On 31.3.2006, the respondent acknowledged the receipt of the said letter and stated that the claim of the petitioner will be considered in due course of time. Since the claim of the petitioner was not settled, nor the security amount of Rs.1,50,000/- refunded, the petitioner sought appointment of an Arbitrator by serving a legal notice dated 16.8.2007. Another legal notice was issued on 24.9.2007, but still an Arbitrator was not appointed. It is, thereafter, that the petitioner approached this Court for Arbitration Case No. 61 of 2008 (2) appointment of an Arbitrator. The arbitration clause contained in the distributorship agreement dated 18.7.2003. reads as under:- “17. Arbitration and applicable law. 17.1 The parties hereby agree that any controversy, claim or dispute arising out of or in relation to the interpretation, application or effects with this Agreement which cannot be resolved amicably, shall be conclusively resolved by arbitration under Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and any amendments thereof. 17.2 The dispute shall be referred to Arbitration by a sole Arbitrator who shall be appointed by the CEO of BML. The Distributor shall not challenge the nomination of Arbitration or his award on the ground that the nomination is made by Executive Director and/or CEO of Bharti Mobile Limited being an employee of one of the parties. 17.3 The place of arbitration shall be Chandigarh and all disputes shall be amenable to the jurisdiction of Chandigarh courts only.” The respondent has not disputed the execution of the agreement or the fact that the disputes have arisen between the parties. However, learned counsel for the respondent states that the respondent is ready to appoint an Arbitrator within two weeks. The facts remains that the respondent has not appointed an Arbitrator, even when called upon by the petitioner to do so. Therefore, the respondent has now lost the right to appoint an Arbitrator in terms of the agreement between the parties. Therefore, in exercise of the powers under Section 11(6) of the Act, Shri M.S. Lobana, Retired District Judge, House No. 78, Sector 27-A, Chandigarh, is appointed an Arbitrator to adjudicate Arbitration Case No. 61 of 2008 (3) upon the dispute(s) between the parties. The Arbitrator shall be free to fix his fee keeping in view the claim amount as also the time that he would require to adjudicate upon the same. Parties are directed to appear before the Arbitrator on 23.3.2009, for further proceedings. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 06-02-2009 ds