HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA CHANDIGARH. *** Arbitration case No.136 of 2006. Date of Decision :January14, 2010. *** M/S Frick India Ltd. Vs. M/S Gautam Ice and Cold Storage. *** CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mukul Mudgal, Chief Justice. *** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? *** Present: Shri R.S.Malik, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for the respondents.. *** Mukul Mudgal, CJ (Oral) Prayer in this petition filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Reconciliation Act, 1996 is for appointment of an arbitrator. Notice of the petition was given to the respondent. Inspite of service upon the respondent, the respondents has chosen not to put in appearance. On April 17, 2009 this Court had passed the following order which reads as under:- ''In view of the fact that the liability of the respondent stands acknowledged in the reply to the notice issued on behalf of the petitioner. It would be just and appropriate to direct the Managing Partner of M/S Gautam Ice Cold and Storage Shri S.C. Gautam to be present in Court in person on the next date of hearing. Copy of this order be served on S.C. Gautam, dasti for 15.05.2009. Even thereafter no one had put in appearance. In view of the Arbitration clause 23 in the agreement/ Sales Orders dated 30.9.1997 -2- Arbitration case No.136 of 2006. executed between the parties, the petitioner has prayed for the appointment of an Arbitrator. The arbitration clause reads as under:- ''All disputes relating to or arising from the contract shall be referred to two arbitrators residing at Delhi, to be appointed each by seller and the buyer before entering upon the reference, the arbitrators shall nominate an umpire, who in the event of disagreement between the arbitrators shall give his award, which shall be binding on the parties. The umpire shall, however, be a person recommended by the President of All India Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Association''. Pursuant to the above clause in the agreement, the petitioner had appointed Shri Harkesh Jain, Advocate on 7.8.2001 as its arbitrator. However, the respondent had not appointed any arbitrator as per the arbitration clause of the agreement. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent has not complied with its obligation by appointing an arbitrator. The allegations contained in the petition are un-rebutted. The petition is accordingly allowed. Shri. Arjun Bhandari, an Advocate of the Delhi High Court is appointed as 2nd Arbitrator, Chamber No. 441, Delhi High Court, Mobile No. 09810052054. The parties are directed to appear before the Arbitrator on April 23, 2010. In the meanwhile the parties will exchange the statements of claim and response thereof. The statement of claim be supplied to counsel for the respondents within four weeks and response to the statement of claim shall be supplied to the counsel for the petitioner within four weeks thereafter. After exchange of pleadings as directed aforesaid, the Arbitrators shall make an endaveour to dispose of the -3- Arbitration case No.136 of 2006. reference not later than six months from the date of first appearance of the parties. In the meanwhile the Arbitrators shall in consultation with the President of the All India Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Association shall appoint an Umpire. The Arbitrators and the Umpire shall fix their own fees. With these directions, the petition stands disposed of. (Mukul Mudgal) January 14, 2010 Chief Justice Malik