Arbitration Case No. 95 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Arbitration Case No. 95 of 2009 Date of Decision: 19.01.2010 M/s Imperials M.I.Road, Jaipur ..Petitioner Versus M/s Priknit Apparels Pvt. Ltd. and another ..Respondents 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 :- Mr. J.S.Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Chopra, Advocate for the respondents. *** MUKUL MUDGAL, C.J. (Oral) 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ' the Act), for appointment of a sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties. 2. Clause 27 of the agreement contains the Arbitration Clause which reads as under:- “27. Any dispute arising from or in connection with this agreement shall be settled by amicable efforts from the parties to the dispute or/otherwise it may be referred to arbitration. In case of arbitration, it shall be referred to arbitration of two Arbitrators in Ludhiana, one arbitrator Arbitration Case No. 95 of 2009 [2] each chosen by each party to the dispute or difference under Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. The competent court in Ludhiana alone shall here be jurisdiction in respect of all matters arisen out of this agreement.” 3. It is not denied that a dispute had arisen between the parties and the arbitration clause was invoked by the petitioner. The only dispute raised by Mr. Chopra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents is that the competent court in Ludhiana alone shall have the jurisdiction in respect of all matters arisen out of this agreement. 4. In my view this defence is no longer available as Section 11 of the Act manifestly provides that Arbitrator has to be appointed by the Chief Justice or any person or institution designated by him. This point has been clarified by seven Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s SBP Co. V. Patel Engg. 2005(8) SCC 618. Therefore, the plea of the respondents is not sustainable. 5. Both learned counsel for the parties have requested that instead of two Arbitrators only one Arbitrator need be appointed by this Court. This is also evident from the provisions of Section 10 of the Act that where arbitration agreement provides for appointment of even number of arbitrators, one arbitrator could be appointed. Section 10 of the Act reads as follows:- “ 10. Number of Arbitrators:- (1) The parties are free to determine the number of arbitrators, provided that such number shall not be an even number. 2) Failing the determination referred to in sub- section (1), the arbitral tribunal shall consist of sole arbitrator.” Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and Shri P.C.Singhal, District & Sessions Judge (Retd.) is appointed as a Arbitration Case No. 95 of 2009 [3] sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties. The arbitration proceedings shall be conducted in Ludhiana (Punjab). 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. The parties shall appear before the Arbitrator on 25.5.2010 at 4.00 P.M. or on an agreed date convenient to the parties but not later than a fortnight from the date of exchange of pleadings as directed aforesaid. The Arbitrator shall make an endaveour to dispose of the reference not later than six months from the date of first appearance of the parties. The Arbitrator shall fix his own fee. Petition stands disposed of. (MUKUL MUDGAL) CHIEF JUSTICE 19.01.2010 'ravinder'