Arbitration Case No. 59 of 2007 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Arbitration Case No. 59 of 2007 Date of Decision: 21.01.2010. Fenner (India) Ltd. ..Petitioner Versus PSEB 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. P.K.Mutneja, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Gagandeep Singh, Advocate for Mr. Pavit Mattewal, 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 67 of the agreement contains the Arbitration Clause which reads as under:- “67.(a) If at any time any question, dispute or whatsoever, shall larise between the purchase/Board and the contractor/supplier, upon or in relation to or in relation or in connection with the Purchase order/contractor, either Arbitration Case No. 59 of 2007 [2] party may forthwith give to the other notice in writing of the existence of such question dispute or difference and the same shall be referred for sole arbitration of a nominee of the Purchaser/Board. The award of the sole arbitrator shall be finaland binding on the parties under the provisions of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 and of the rules thereunder. Any statutory amendment, modification or reenactment thereof for the time being in force, shall be deemed to apply to and be incorporated in the contract/purchase order. It will not be objectionable if the sole arbitrator is an officer of the Board and he has expressed his views on all or any of the matters in question of dispute or difference.” 3. The invocation of arbitration clause is not disputed. 4. On 17.12.2009, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, the following order was passed:- “Relying upon Datar Switchgears Ltd. V. Tata Finance Ltd. and another (2000) 8 Supreme Court Cases 151 and Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and another V. Motorola India Private Ltd. (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 337, it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that since the Court was seized of the matter on 15.06.2007, the appointment of an Arbitrator after that date was contrary to the position of law laid down in the aforesaid two judgments. On the contrary, the above position of law was countered by learned proxy counsel for the respondents stating that the first Arbitrator Shri N.K.Arora declined to act leading to the situation where second Arbitrator Shri G.S.Sra was appointed on 17.01.2007. However, arguing counsel Mr. Pavit Mattewal for the respondents is not available and learned proxy counsel appearing on his behalf sought adjournment to argue the matter. List again on 14.01.2010. In the meanwhile, the parties to take instructions as to whether first Arbitrator Shri N.K.Arora is inclined to accept the arbitration because in my view the facts of the case clearly indicate that his appointment would subserve the interest of justice and the position of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgments aforementioned.” 5. Pursuant to order dated 17.12.2009, the respondents have obtained instructions and according to their instructions they have no objections for appointing Mr. N.K.Arora, Member/Power Bakhra Beas Arbitration Case No. 59 of 2007 [3] Management Board, Chandigarh as an Arbitrator to complete the arbitration proceedings initiated by him. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and Shri N.K.Arora, Member/Power Bakhra Beas Management Board, Chandigarh is directed to act as an Arbitrator. The parties shall appear before the Arbitrator on 2.3.2010 at 4.00 P.M. or within a fortnight on an agreed date convenient to the parties. Since the matter is pending for a long time and pleadings are already complete, the award shall be pronounced by the Arbitrator not later than four 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 21.01.2010 'ravinder'