PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT, CHANDIGARH. *** Arbitration Case No. 128 of 2009. Date of decision: August 12, 2010. *** M/S Ram Kumar Bansal Versus Punjab State Agr.Marketing Board. *** Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mukul Mudgal, Chief Justice. *** Present: Shri P.S.Rana, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri P.S.Batra, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 to 3. None for respondent No.4. *** Mukul Mudgal, CJ (Oral) By filing this petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996,, the petitioner has prayed for appointment of an Arbitrator, on the basis of arbitration clause No. 25-A contained in the agreement, which reads as under:- '' If any question, difference or objection whatsoever shall arise in any way connected with or arising out of this instrument of the manning or operation of any part thereof or the right duties or liabilities of either party that save in so far as the decision of any such matter is herein before provided for and has been so decided every such matter including whether its decision has been otherwise provided for and or whether the same has been finally decided accordingly or whether contract should be terminated or has been rightly terminated and as regards rights and obligation of parties as the result of such termination shall be referred for arbitration of the Superintending Engineer of the Board of acting as such at the time of reference within 180 days viz six months from the date making final payment to the contractor or when the contractor is not willing to receive the payment from the date a registered notice is sent to him that his final bill is ready for payment and his decision shall be final and binding and where the matter involves a claim under or -2- payment of recovery of deduction of money, only the amount if any awarded in such arbitration shall be recoverable money; in respect of matter referred. If the matter neither is nor referred to arbitration within the specified period all the rights claims under the contract shall be deemed to have been forfeited and absolutely barred''. The invocation of arbitration clause and existence of dispute is not denied by the learned counsel for the respondents. The only plea taken by counsel for the respondents to resist the appointment of arbitrator is that claim was not made before the Superintending Engineer of the Punjab State Marketing Board , Faridkot Circle. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had submitted its claim to Superintending Engineer, Ferozepur who was looking after the work of Faridkot Circle also as at the relevant time there was no Superintending Engineer, Faridkot Circle. It is not in dispute that the Superintending Engineer, Faridkot Circle now exists. Consequently, the petitioner may submit its claim to the Superintending Engineer, Faridkot Circle not later than four weeks from today and the Superintending Engineer shall take a decision on that claim by rendering an arbitration award not later than six months from the date of submission of claim. Accordingly the petition stands disposed of. (Mukul Mudgal) August 12, 2010 Chief Justice Malik