HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B.LOKUR ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO.23 OF 2011 Dt: 23-12-2011. Between: M/S.KERALA STATE ELECTRONICS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (KELTRON), KELTRON EQUIPMENT COMPLEX, KARAKULAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM KERALA STATE. REP. BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, HYDERABAD BRANCH, SRI.BUCHAIAH NARAN SYNDICATE BANK COMPLEX, ASHOK NAGAR, HYDERABAD .. PETITIONER AND SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY REP. BY SENIOR DIVISIONAL COMMERCIAL MANAGER, SECUNDERABAD DIVISION, SANCHALAN BHAVAN, SECUNDERABAD .. RESPONDENT HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B.LOKUR ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO.23 OF 2011 ORDER: The parties had entered into a CCTV contract with allied works at Secunderabad Railway Station and other MMTS stations (between Secunderabad to Lingampalli and Secunderabad to Hyderabad stations) over Secunderabad Division on 21.11.2008. 2. The work involves installation/operation and maintenance of closed circuit audio visual colour television system along with the making of announcements for train arrivals and departures, updating and operations of train information boards and coach indication boards at Secunderabad station etc. The contract was for a period of three years. 3. Certain disputes and differences arose between the parties. According to the petitioner, the respondents were obligated to provide a centralized server and to provide connectivity so that the facilities could be made available. It is submitted that connectivity was provided by the respondents only on 01.06.2010 while the centralized server was provided on 26.10.2010. Accordingly, it is submitted that the contract could not be operated for a period of little more than four months. 4. Since the petitioner was liable to pay some amounts to the respondents, the delay in providing the centralized server has become material. 5. Since the disputes could not be resolved, the petitioner sent a notice dated 26.7.2010 requesting the respondents to refer the disputes and claims to an arbitrator in terms of Clause 15 of the agreement dated 21.11.2008. 6. In response, the respondents gave a letter dated 2.9.2010 stating that it was willing to resolve the dispute amicably, but it appears that the petitioner was not interested in an amicable solution. It was also stated in the letter that the petitioner did not appear to be interested in executing the contract inspite of all possible cooperation extended by the respondents. Accordingly, notice was given to the petitioner to commence the terms of the contract and to pay the licence fee, failing which the contract would be terminated forthwith. 7. It appears that the contract was not terminated and that it is still continuing. 8. On 7.9.2010 the petitioner again wrote a letter to the respondents reiterating its request for the appointment of an arbitrator. Since no reply was received to the letter the present application under section 11(6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been filed by the petitioner. 9. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit dated 21.7.2011. It is stated in the counter affidavit that an arbitrator was not appointed since the respondents were desirous of settling the matter amicably, but the petitioner is not interested in an amicable settlement. As far as the appointment of an arbitrator is concerned, it is stated that the respondents are willing to appoint an arbitrator in terms of Clause 15 of the agreement between the parties. 10. An attempt was made by this court to get the parties to settle the dispute amicably and an order was passed on 28-11-2011 requiring the parties to explore the possibility of settlement. 11. Today, learned counsel for the parties say that there is no possibility of a settlement. 12. Under the circumstances, since the dispute between the parties appear to be real and genuine and even the respondents are inclined to appoint an arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the parties, I see no reason why an arbitrator should not be appointed in the matter. 13. Under the circumstances, I appoint Justice A.Gopal Reddy, former Judge of this Court, as an arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties. 14. Accordingly, this Arbitration Application is disposed of. ( MADAN B.LOKUR, CJ ) Dt: 23-12-2011. TNB HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B.LOKUR ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO.23 OF 2011 Dt: 23-12-2011.