Arbitration Case No. 150 of 2006 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Arbitration Case No. 150 of 2006 Date of Decision: 27.09.2010 Anesthetic Gases Pvt. Ltd. ..Petitioner Versus Managing Director Punjab State Supply & Marketing Federation Ltd and others. ..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. Rajbir Singh Guron, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Neena Madan, 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 an sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties. Arbitration Case No. 150 of 2006 [2] 2. Clause 25 of the agreement contains the Arbitration Clause which reads as under:- “That in case of any dispute arising between party or any matter herein contained on the respective right and liabilities of the parties of their enforcement, shall be referred to Managing Director Marfed who shall decide the dispute himself or appointing an Arbitrator for his award, which shall be final and binding on both the parties.” 3. It is pleaded case of the petitioner that respondent was called upon to appoint an Arbitrator by virtue of a notice served through its counsel Shri Nasib Singh Gill on 7.4.2004 as well as sought appointment of an Arbitrator by writing a letter to the Managing Director on 3.5.2004 but the respondent has failed to appoint the Arbitrator. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents denies having received any communication dated 03.05.2004 though receipt of notice dated 07.04.2004 is admitted. Learned counsel for the respondents states that said notice was not for appointment of an Arbitrator for but recovery of the amount allegedly due to the petitioner. 4. So far as the contention raised by learned counsel for the respondent that letter dated 3.5.2004 was not received, learned counsel for the petitioner has produced a dispatch register of the firm along with AD receipt to show that letter dated 3.5.2004 was infact posted and received by the respondent. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent failed to show as to how the entry made in the dispatch register and AD receipt were wrong. Arbitration Case No. 150 of 2006 [3] 5. On perusal of the record available on the file of this case as well as the dispatch register and AD receipt produced, I am satisfied that notice dated 3.5.2004 was also served upon the respondent and inspite of the service of the said notice, the Arbitrator was not appointed. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and Shri T.R.Bansal, Additional District & Sessions Judge (Retd.) is appointed as a sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties. 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 03.12.2010 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 dispose of the reference not later than six months from the date of first appearance of the parties. The fee of the Arbitrator is fixed as Rs. One lac in lump sum which shall be paid equally by both the parties but subject to the final award. (MUKUL MUDGAL) CHIEF JUSTICE 27.09. 2010 'ravinder'