IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Arb. Case No.60 of 2010 Date of decision: 19.05.2011 M/s Rajiv Kumar Aggarwal …..Petitioner vs. State of Punjab & others …..Respondents CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: - Mr. Raman Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. H.S.Brar, Addl. AG, Punjab, for the respondent. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The petitioner has sought appointment of an Arbitrator in respect of the disputes arising out of Agreement No.5 of 2005-06. Vide the aforesaid Agreement, the petitioner has been awarded work of improvement of Hoshiarpur-Una Road from KM 1.40 to KM 19.10 up to Himachal boundary in District Hoshiarpur under Inter-State Connectivity and Economic Important Scheme. The agreement stipulated six months period for completion of the project, whereas the petitioner completed the same on 31.12.2007. The disputes, inter alia, between the parties are whether the petitioner delayed the completion of the work or the respondents failed to hand-over the site for construction of the project; or whether the petitioner is entitled to escalation cost of the material. On behalf of the respondents, it has been pointed out that the time for completion of the project was extended on the condition that there will be no financial implication and that Arb. Case No.60 of 2010 the petitioner will not claim any escalation. It is pointed out that the petitioner did not apply for appointment of dispute review expert within 14 days. The petitioner applied on 08.11.2010 i.e. after a lapse of 52 days instead of 14 days. The arbitration clause 25.3 in the agreement reads as under: “25.3 (a) In case of dispute or difference arising between the employer and the contractor relating to any matter arising out of or connected with this agreement, such dispute or difference shall be settled in accordance with the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The parties shall make efforts to agree on a sole arbitrator and only such an attempted does not succeed, an arbitral tribunal consisting of 3 arbitrators, one each to be appointed by the employer and the contractor and the third arbitrator to be chosen by the two arbitrators so appointed by the parties to act as presiding arbitrator shall be considered. In case of failure of the two arbitrators appointed by the parties to reach upon a consensus within a period of 30 days from the appointment of the arbitrator appointed subsequently, the residing arbitrator shall be appointee by the council, Indian Roads Congress, New Delhi.” Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the time limit for referring the dispute to the dispute review experts or to the Arbitrator cannot bar the claim of the petitioner in view the amendment carried out in Section 28 of the Contract Act vide Parliament Act No.1 of 1997 published on 08.01.1997. By virtue of such amendment, neither the right nor the remedy can be said to be barred by time limit stipulated in the Agreement. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the parties agreed that the disputes be referred for decision to sole arbitrator. Since the disputes between the parties have arisen, the same are required to be decided by an Arbitrator. Consequently, Mr. T.R.Bansal, Additional District Judge (Retd.), resident of House No.768, Sector 22-A, 2 Arb. Case No.60 of 2010 Chandigarh is appointed as Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties. The Sole Arbitrator shall fix his fee in consultation of the parties on the first date of hearing with liberty to the parties to seek clarification, if any, in the matter of fee. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 19.05.2011 Vimal 3