IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Arbitration Case No. 16 of 2009 Date of Decision: 28.08.2009 Jastinder Singh ..Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others. ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.THAKUR,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. Vishal Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Madhu Dayal, Addl. A.G. Punjab for the respondents. ***** T.S.Thakur, C.J. (Oral) In this petition under Section 11(6)of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, the petitioner seeks a reference to an independent Arbitrator for adjudication of certain disputes that have arisen between the parties in relation to certain civil works for construction of an alternate water supply scheme allotted to the petitioner for execution. That an arbitration clause exists in the notice inviting tenders, which was a part of the agreement between the parties, is not disputed. According to the petitioner disputes having arisen, a Arbitration Case No. 16 of 2009 [2] notice was sent to the respondents to agree to the appointment of an Arbitrator for adjudication of the same. Since no Arbitrator was nominated by the respondents, the filing of the present petition under Section 11(6) of the Act became unavoidable. On behalf of the respondents, it is on the other hand submitted that no notice like the one alleged in the application was ever received by the respondents, there was, therefore, no question of responding to the same by nominating an Arbitrator. It was alternatively submitted that no dispute exists between the parties, which could call for adjudication whether by way of arbitration or otherwise. In so far as the first aspect viz. whether a notice was served upon the respondents is concerned, the petitioner has placed on record a copy of notice marked as Annexure P-12 and asserted that the same was despatched by registered AD. That assertion is supported by an affidavit also. That apart even after filing of this petition and issue of a notice from this Court, the respondents have not chosen to appoint an Arbitrator within a period of 30 days from the date of the receipt of the Court notice. There is no explanation forthcoming for that failure either the only explanation being appeared is that according to the respondents there are no disputes which call for any process of adjudication. That explanation does not stand closer scrutiny. It is trite that a claim made by the petitioner when denied by the other party gives rise to a dispute calling for adjudication. That such a denial has been made in the present case is evident from the pleadings. In the circumstances, a reference to an arbitration has indeed become necessary. I accordingly allow this petition and refer the Arbitration Case No. 16 of 2009 [3] disputes between the parties to the sole arbitration of Justice A.L.Bahri, former Judge of this Court. The parties shall appear before the Arbitrator for directions on 19.09.2009 at 10.00 A.M. The Arbitrator fee is fixed at Rs. 10000/- per hearing subject to a maximum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. One lac) to be deposited by the parties in the ratio and the manner directed by the Arbitrator. No costs. (T.S.THAKUR) CHIEF JUSTICE 28.08.2009 'ravinder'