IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO. 33 OF 2007 M/s Detibh Engineers Pvt. Ltd. ).. Applicant Versus Union of India and another ).. Respondents Mr.T.S. Sachdevani for the Applicant. Mr. Suresh Kumar for the Respondents. CORAM : J.N. PATEL, ACTING C.J. DATED : 8TH JANUARY 2010 P.C. Heard. 2. The Applicant has filed this Application for seeking appointment of an Arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It is the case of the Applicant that by a Contract entered into between the parties on 2nd August 2000 the Applicant was awarded work of fabrication supply and fixing of new galvanized mild steel channel sleepers and galvanized mild steel grooved plates including fixing of running rails and guard rails complete with railway matching fittings and fixtures including galvanizing of this matching fittings to be supplied by the Railway as required by the railway approved design and drawings completely with the Contractor’s expenditure. 3. It is the case of the Applicant that it was obligatory on the part of the Respondents to issue contracted drawings/descriptive note showing details of work location wise required to be carried out by the Applicant under the contract agreement along with the Letter of Acceptance or immediately thereafter but the Respondents committed breach of the Contract and directed the Applicant to carry out the work as per the changed sizes of articles given as shown in the drawing. The changes were got approved from them from time to time. The Applicant, despite breach of this term which was varied, discharged its contractual obligation. It is the case of the Applicant that the fabrication drawing of pad plates was approved on 7th April 2001 i.e. after eight months and that due to non-cooperation of the officials of the Respondents, the execution of the Contract was delayed and, therefore, the Applicant is entitled to be compensated for all financial loss suffered by it due to the said breach of the Contract. 4. On completion of the work, the Applicant demanded the difference in prise and loss suffered by it but the final bill was not paid. Therefore, the Applicant vide its Advocate’s letter dated 22nd September 2006 invoked the arbitration clause in the Contract and called upon the Respondents to appoint the Arbitrator for adjudication of its claim. As the Respondents failed to do so, the Applicant has filed this Application for seeking appointment of an Arbitrator. It is submitted that since the work executed by the Applicant is technical in nature, a technical person may be appointed as an Arbitrator. 5. The learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents submits that the averments relating to the execution of the contract and allegations against the Respondents for causing delay of the contract and loss to the Applicant is specifically denied and that extension was granted to the Applicant due to certain contingencies which is recorded in their correspondence. It is submitted that the General Manager, Railways used to appoint an Arbitrator to resolve disputes between the parties. However, it is submitted that as per Clause 37.2.3 of the Special Conditions of the Contract, the Applicant can seek reference to Arbitrator where the claim is not more than 20% of the contractual amount. In the case of the Applicant, the dispute raised by the Applicant was for a claim of more than Rupees Two crores and, therefore, the General Manager, Railways did not appoint an Arbitrator. 6. The learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant submitted that the Applicant has thereafter restricted his claim to Rs.42 lakhs which is not more than 20% of the contractual amount excluding final bill and security deposit. 7. Accordingly, General Manager, Western Railways is directed to appoint an Arbitrator within eight weeks from today of passing of this Order and the Arbitrator so appointed will expeditiously dispose of the Reference preferably within a period of six months which shall be strictly in accordance with Clause 37.2.3 of the Special Conditions of the Contract. 8. Application disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE