Arb.P. 27/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. R.S.GARG Heard Mr R Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner a nd Ms M Baruah, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The matter is finally heard. 3. The petitioner has come to this Court with a submission that he entered into an agreement for construction of 2 Nos. Carriage Washing Pit (460m long) for 20 Coach capacity each including construction of industrial floor (460 x 15m), construction of sump, pump house, garbage, dumping bin, covered drain e tc. with provision of seamless black steel pipe and 50 mm dia ERW galvanized hea vy steel pipe to IS: 1239(Part-I) including other ancillary works in connection with Bogibeel Bridge Project on 31.10.2006. According to the petitioner, after t he period of contract was over the contract was terminated. The petitioner, ther eafter, issued a notice to the authorities for appointment of an arbitrator or f or referring the matter to arbitrator. The respondents refused to refer the mat ter to the arbitrator within 120 days as prescribed under the conditions. Theref ore, the petitioner has come to this Court. 4. It is contended that from a perusal of para 10 of the contract a greement it would clearly appear that arbitration and settlement of disputes sha ll be governed by Clause 63 and 64 of the General Conditions of Contract, N.F. R ailway, 1998 edition and as the prayer of the petitioner for reference to arbit ration was not paid any attention the petitioner is entitled to an order in its favour. 4. The respondents have filed affidavit through one Mohinder Singh and have submitted that Clause 63 and 64 of the General Conditions of Contract, as referred to in para 10 of the contract agreement, are subject to para 10.1, 1 0.2 and 10.3. It is contended that if the value of the claim or dispute between the parties is less than or equal to 20% of the value of the contract amount the n only the matter can be referred to arbitration. It is contended that from the claims put forth by the petitioner which is Rs. 1,36,75,587/- it would appear th at it is more than 20% of the value of the contract amount and, as such, para 10 of the agreement was not applied. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the claim lo dged with the Department on 17.4.2009 submitted that the claim was for an amoun t of Rs. 1,34,75,587/- and if that is taken to be the value of the claim then th e said claim comes within 20% of the contract amount. It is submitted that in th e notice dated 11.6.2009 a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- was claimed as litigation expen ses and not as a claim under the contract agreement. After going through the sai d claim lodged with the Department and as enshrined in the legal notice, I am sa tisfied that the claim amount is Rs. 1,34,75,587/- which is less than 20% of the contract amount. If that be so Para 10.1, 10.2 and 10.3 would have no applicati on and the petitioner would be entitled to an order from this Court for appointm ent of an arbitrator. 6. Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.G. Agarwal, a former Judge of this Court i s hereby appointed as the arbitrator to take up the matter. The terms of arbitra tion including the fees and place of sitting shall be decided by the concerned a rbitrator. 7. Let a notice be issued from the Court side to Hon’ble Mr Justice P.G. Agarwal that under these orders he has been appointed as an arbitrator and if he has no objection to his appointment he may issue notice to the parties fo r filing of their claims/ written statement/ counter claim/ replies to the count er claim and in case he finds any difficulty in accepting the assignment then he may inform this Court. 8. The petition is finally allowed.