Arbitration Case No.143 of 2006 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Arbitration Case No.143 of 2006 Date of Decision: 22 - 01 - 2008 Mukhtayar Singh ....Petitioner through Mr.Naresh Kaushik , Advocate for Mr.K.S.Dhanora, Advocate v. Municipal Council, Bhiwani and another ....Respondents through Mr.Mr.Vijender Panghaal, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VIJENDER JAIN, CHIEF JUSTICE *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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? *** VIJENDER JAIN, CHIEF JUSTICE (ORAL) The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an Arbitrator. Arbitration agreement is admitted between the parties. Notice invoking the arbitration clause is also admitted. However, in spite of service of notice invoking the arbitration clause, no Arbitrator was appointed by the respondents in terms of the arbitration clause. The stand taken by the respondents for not supplying the vacancy is that the contract was cancelled on account of protest by the public. That is not a reason for non appointment of the Arbitrator. Arbitration Case No.143 of 2006 [2] Therefore, with the consent of the parties, I appoint Justice G.C.Mittal (retired Chief Justice) as the sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon all the disputes between the parties. The Arbitrator shall fix his own fee. The intimation of appointment be sent to the Arbitrator. Parties to appear before the Arbitrator on 14.3.2008 at 4.00 P.M. Petition stands disposed of. ( VIJENDER JAIN ) January 22, 2008 CHIEF JUSTICE RC