Arbitration Case No. 161 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (1) Arbitration Case No. 161 of 2008 Date of Decision: 6.10.2010. Backbone Projects Ltd. ....Petitioner Versus The State of Haryana and others ...Respondents (2) Arbitration Case No. 31 of 2009 Backbone Projects Ltd. ....Petitioner Versus The State of Haryana and others ...Respondents (3) Arbitration Case No. 32 of 2009 Backbone Projects Ltd. ....Petitioner Versus The State of Haryana 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. Rajesh Sethi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Randhir Singh, Addl. AG Haryana for the respondents. MUKUL MUDGAL, C.J. (Oral ) This order shall dispose of all the afore-mentioned three petitions as the common question of law, fact and arbitration clause is involved therein. Even the parties to the dispute are also the same. These petitions have been filed by the petitioner under Section 11 Arbitration Case No. 161 of 2008 2 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act') for appointment of sole arbitration in each case to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties. The arbitration clause of the above three petitions are to the following effect: “Arbitration: The arbitration will be conducted as per Indian Arbitration Act and Conciliation 1996 or any amendment there of. Procedure for appointment of Arbitrator: Chief Engineer/Coordination : HID or any other Chief Engineer, as appointed by Govt. for this purpose will act as an arbitrator in the proceedings.” Upon notice respondents put in appearance and filed their reply. On 25.5.2010, the following orders were passed: “Along with the rejoinder filed by petitioner, a copy of notice under Section 80 CPC (Annexure R-8) addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Panipat has been annexed, wherein the following averments have been made in paragraph No.4 :- “That the claim has not been finalized due to the inquiry is still pending from State Vigilance Bureau as per instructions issued by Chief Engineer (CU), Panchkula. The next date of management meeting has been fixed on 11.12.2007 for settlement of dispute.” The counsel for the respondent is directed to place on record the affidavit of the respondent indicating therein as to current stage of the inquiry pending with the Vigilance Bureau and the further steps contemplated, if any. List again on September 27, 2010.” Today Mr. Randhir Singh, Addl. AG Haryana, appearing on behalf of respondents placed on record copy of letter No. 1700-05/6-Const./2010 dated 30.9.2010 to the effect that Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Chief Engineer/LCU has been appointed as an arbitrator by the Government in the above mentioned three cases. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has no objection to the appointment of the said arbitrator. Accordingly, these petitions are disposed of with directions that parties will exchange the statements of claim and response thereof. The statement of claim be supplied to counsel for the respondents within four weeks Arbitration Case No. 161 of 2008 3 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 15.12.2010 at 10:00 A.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 by rendering an award. The Arbitrator shall fix his own fee. (MUKUL MUDGAL) 6.10.2010 CHIEF JUSTICE Reema