- 1 - S.B.CIVIL MISC. ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO.98/06 M/s Maheshwari Builders vs. Union of India &Anr. DATE OF ORDER : 4/5/2007 HONB'LE SHRI RAJESH BALIA, J. Mr.Dinesh Mehta, for the applicant. Mr.Kuldeep Mathur, for the respondents. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that this application deserves to be allowed. The applicant had been granted contract of construction of M.D.Accommodation for 48 quarters at Jaisalmer vide work order dated 31/5/2002. The dispute had arisen between the parties out of the said contract and clause 70 of the contract agreement provides that such dispute is referable to arbitrator. The notice under Section 11 of the Act of 1996 having been served on the respondents vide Annex.4 dated 15/6/2006, the request was refused by saying that applicant has received the full payment and thus dispute is not referable. Apparently, it cannot be stated that no dispute exists between the parties. The fact that some bills have been passed by the respondents and payment has been received by the applicant in the ordinary course of business, it does not preclude the party from raising dispute about finality of the bill. Such dispute do arise out of the contract. - 2 - Accordingly, the dispute was referable to arbitrator in terms of the agreement but the respondents have failed to do so vide Annex.5 dated 13/7/2006. Consequently, this application under Section 11 of the Act of 1996 is allowed. Shri M.C.Mehta, Addl. Chief Engineer, P.W.D. (Retd.) resident of 33, Amar Nagar, Pal Road, Jodhpur is appointed as sole arbitrator to whom the dispute shall be referred. The cost of the arbitration and fees of the arbitrator shall be as determined by the Arbitrator himself. (RAJESH BALIA), J. Pankaj Baweja.