IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 5.5.2011 (i) Arb. Case No. 142 of 2010 (O&M) M/s Gurmail & Company ..…Petitioner vs. State of Haryana and another …..Respondents (ii) Arb Case No. 143 of 2010 (O&M) M/s Gurmail & Company ..…Petitioner vs. State of Haryana and another …..Respondents CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: - Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Pardeep Singh Poonia, Addl. AG, Haryana HEMANT GUPTA, J Present is the petition for appointment of an Arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the ‘Act’) for appointment of an Arbitrator in respect of the disputes arising between the parties out of an Agreement dated 6.1.2005. The relevant Clause 25-A reads as under: - 25-A (1) If any dispute or difference of any kind whatsoever shall arise between the Governor of Haryana/his authorized agents and the contractor in connection with or arising out of the contract of the execution of the work that is (I) whether before its commencement or during the progress of the work or after its completion (ii) and whether before or after the termination abandonment of branch of the contract, it shall in the first instance be referred to for being settled by the Executive Engineer-in-Charge or the work at the time and he shall within a period of sixty das after being requested in writing by the contractor to do so, Arb. Case No. 142 of 2010 convey his decision to the contractor and subject to arbitration as hereinafter provided such decision in respect of every matter so referred shall be final and binding upon the contractor in case the work is already in progress, the contractor will proceed with the execution of the work on receipt of the decision by the Executive Engineer-in- Charge as aforesaid with all due diligence whether he or the Governor of Haryana/his authorized agent requires arbitration as hereinafter provided or not if the Executive Engineer-in-Charge of the work has conveyed his decision to the contractor and no claim to arbitration has been filled with him by the contractor within a period of sixty days from the receipt of letter communicating the decision the said decision shall be final and binding upon the contractor and will not be a subject matter of arbitration at all if the Executive Engineer-in-Charge of the work fails to convey his decision within a period of sixty days after being requested as aforesaid the contractor may within further sixty days of the expiry of first sixty days from the date on which request has been made to the Executive Engineer-in-Charge request the Engineer-in-Chief, that the matter in dispute be referred to arbitration, as hereinafter provided. Earlier, the petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of this Court for appointment of an Arbitrator under the Act in Arbitration case No. 33 of 2008. This Court vide the order dated 30.10.2009 disposed of the petition in view of the statement in reply, the respondents will make appointment of arbitrator in terms of the agreement on deposit being made by the petitioner in accordance with law. The petitioner filed the present petition on 27.10.2010, which was returned with the objections. The objections were removed only on 9.11.2010. It has come on the record that the petitioner deposited 10% amount in terms of Clause 25-A (7) of the Agreement as the amount of security of the Arbitration proceedings on 4.5.2010. It was 2 Arb. Case No. 142 of 2010 thereafter, the Engineer-in-Chief has appointed Shri Neeraj Gupta, Superintending Engineer Chandigarh Circle PWD B&R, Branch Chandigarh as an Arbitrator vide the order dated 30.10.2009. Keeping in view the fact that the respondents have appointed an Arbitrator in terms of the directions issued by this Court on 30.10.2009 and the fact that the petitioner has nothing specific against the Arbitrator appointed, therefore, I do not find any justification to debar the respondents for continuing with the Arbitrator already appointed. I do not find that any other Arbitrator other than the Arbitrator appointed needs to be appointed. Learned counsel for the respondents states that the petitioner may file his statement of claims within a period of two weeks from today before the Arbitrator who shall proceed with the arbitration proceedings in accordance with law. In view of the said fact, the present petition is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 5.5.2011 preeti 3