Arbitration Case No.20 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 3.5.2010 1. Arbitration Case No.20 of 2010 Surinder Dalal ..Petitioner Versus Commissioner & Secretary to Govt. of Haryana and others ..Respondents 2. Arbitration Case No.21 of 2010 Surinder Dalal ..Petitioner Versus Commissioner & Secretary to Govt. 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. Pritam Saini, Advocate, for the petitioner in both the cases. Mr. Anil Rathee, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondents in both the cases. *** MUKUL MUDGAL, C.J. (Oral) 1. This order shall dispose of Arbitration Petitions No. 20 and 21 of 2010 as the common questions of law and facts are involved in both the petitions. Arbitration Case No.20 of 2010 [2] 2. These petitions have 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 19.3 of the agreement contains the Arbitration Clause which reads as under:- “ 19.3 The Adjudicator will be paid daily at the rate specified in the contract data together with such reimbursable expense of the types as provided in the contract data and the cost shall be divided equally between both the Engineer and the contractor. Either party may refer a decision of the Adjudicator for arbitration within 15 days of the record of Adjudicator's written decision. If neither party refers the dispute to arbitration within this period, the Adjudicator's decision will be final and binding. 6. Qualification required, if any, of the arbitrator by the agreement of the parties:- CE/Coordination, HoD or any other Chief Engineer as appointed by the Government for this purpose will act as an Arbitrator”. 3. It is admitted case of the parties that a dispute arising out of the agreement had taken place between the parties. Pursuant to the invocation of the arbitration clause, the respondents had appointed Shri S.K.Ashri, Chief Engineer, LCU, Irrigation Department, Haryana, Panchkula, as an Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the dispute between the parties vide order dated 20.02.2009. However, Mr. Ashri retired on 31.12.2009 after attaining the age of superannuation and on his retirement, the respondents appointed Shri Rama Kant Sharma, Chief Engineer, LCU, Irrigation Department, Haryana, as an Arbitrator on 18.2.2010 strictly as per the clause of the arbitration contained in the agreement. Arbitration Case No.20 of 2010 [3] 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that his client has apprehension that Mr. Rama Kant Sharma, Chief Engineer, who has been appointed as Arbitrator, would not be an impartial Arbitrator because one Executive Engineer Shri S.K.Yadav who is inimical towards the petitioner has a great influence in the department and therefore he would exert pressure on Mr. Rama Kant Sharma, Chief Engineer also so as to defeat the claims of the petitioner. 5. I am not satisfied with the apprehension raised by learned counsel for the petitioner because Mr. Rama Kant Sharma who has been appointed as an Arbitrator is holding the post of Chief Engineer who is far senior than Mr. S.K.Yadav, Executive Engineer, in hierarchy, therefore, he would not be or ought to be affected by any action of Mr. Yadav in any manner even if it is assumed that the allegations levelled against Mr. Yadav are correct. Therefore, the plea raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is rejected and Mr. Rama Kant Sharma, Chief Engineer, already appointed as an Arbitrator, is directed to proceed further in the matter. The parties will exchange the statements of claims and response thereof. The statements of claims 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 are directed to appear before him on 13.09.2010 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. Arbitration Case No.20 of 2010 [4] With these observations, both these petitions stand disposed of. (MUKUL MUDGAL) CHIEF JUSTICE 03.05.2010 'ravinder'