Arbitration No.85 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Arbitration No.85 of 2007 Decided on : 23-01-2009 M/s Parbhat Kumar ....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? -.- Present:- Mr. Vibhav Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ajay Gupta, Addl. A.G., Haryana. HEMANT GUPTA, J The petitioner has sought appointment of an Arbitrator in respect of non-payment of due amount of contract for construction of Judicial Complex in the Campus of Mini Secretariat, Jhajjar. It is the case of the petitioner that the work of construction of the Judicial Complex at Jhajjar was allotted to the petitioner vide allotment letter dated 20.6.2003. The work was to be completed within 11 months. In terms of the acceptance letter, the terms and conditions of the Draft Tender Notice were applicable. It is alleged that on account of default on the part of respondent, the petitioner was not able to perform his part of the contract and vide letter dated 22.2.2005, he has invoked Clause 25 of the contract for appointment of an Arbitrator. Instead of appointing an Arbitrator, the respondent released earnest money of Rs.8, 24,000/- vide Arbitration No.85 of 2007 -2- Demand Draft dated 4.3.2005. The petitioner has pleaded that copy of the agreement was not supplied even though a written request for supply of the said agreement was made on 24.12.2006 (annexure P-5). Aggrieved against the non appointment of Arbitrator, the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for appointment of an Arbitrator. In reply, it has been pointed out that no reference for appointment of an Arbitrator is maintainable unless the contractor furnishes to the satisfaction of the Executive Engineer-in Charge of the work, a security deposit of the sum demanded. For claims of Rs.1.00 lakhs and above the rate of security deposit will be 10% of the amount claimed. In the present case the petitioner is required to deposit Rs.2.50 lakhs as security before the petitioner can be permitted to seek an arbitration. It is also pointed out that the work for execution could not be implemented for want of drawings approved by the competent authority. After arrangement of drawings of the work, the contractor was requested to start the work immediately. But, he did not do so and sought appointment of an Arbitrator. The petitioner has sought appointment of an Arbitrator vide communication dated 22.2.2005, when amount more than the security deposit was available with the respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also stated that the petitioner is even now ready to deposit Rs.2.5 lakhs as a condition precedent for determination of dispute. In view of the above, the dispute between the parties is referred for adjudication to the sole arbitration of Shri N.S. Ahlawat, Retd. District Judge, R/o H.No. 1391/S.P., Sector 3, Sonepat Road, Rohtak. The Arbitration No.85 of 2007 -3- 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 2.03.2009. (Hemant Gupta) Judge 23rd January, 2009. monika