Arbitration Case No. 136 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Arbitration Case No. 136 of 2009 Date of Decision: 4.5.2010 M/s Bansal Builders ..Petitioner Versus 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. Vibhav Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Rathee, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana, 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. Arbitration Case No. 136 of 2009 [2] 2. Clause 25-A(1) of the agreement contains the Arbitration Clause which reads as under:- “ 25-A(1) If any dispute or difference of any kind whatsoever shall arise between the Governor of Haryana/his authorised agents and the contractor in connection with or arising out of the contract of the execution of the work that is (i) whether before its commencement or during the progress of the work or after its completion (ii) and whether before or after the termination abandonment of branch of the contract, it shall in the first instance be referred to for being settled by the Executive Engineer-in charge of the work at the time and he shall within a period of sixty days after being requested in writing by the contractor to do so, convey his decision to the contractor and subject to arbitration as hereinafter provided such decision in respect of every matter so referred shall be final and binding upon the contractor in case the work is already in progress, the contractor will proceed with the execution of the work on receipt of the decision by the Executive Engineer-in charge as aforesaid with all due diligence whether he or the Governor of Haryana/his authorized agent requires arbitration as hereinafter provided or not if the Executive Engineer-in charge of the work has conveyed his decision to the contractor and no claim to arbitration has been filled with him by the contractor within a period of sixty days from the receipt of letter communicating the decision the said decision shall be final and binding upon the contractor and will not be a subject matter of arbitration at all if the Executive Engineer-in charge of the work fails to convey his decision within a period of sixty days after being requested as aforesaid the contractor may within further sixty days of the expiry of first sixty days from the date on which request has been made to the Executive Engineer- in charge request the Engineer-in charge, that the matter in dispute be referred to arbitration as hereinafter provided.” 3. At the out set of arguments, learned counsel for the respondents filed an affidavit stating that the Arbitrator has already been appointed to adjudicate upon the dispute between the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner says that this petition may be disposed of with a direction to the Arbitrator to decide the matter within a stipulated period. Arbitration Case No. 136 of 2009 [3] 4. In view of the statement made by learned counsel for the parties, this petition has become infructuous and the appointed Arbitrator is directed to proceed with the matter. In the meanwhile, the parties will exchange the statements of claims and response thereof. The statements of claim be supplied to counsel for the respondents within four weeks and response to the statements of claims shall be supplied to the counsel for the petitioner within four weeks thereafter. The parties shall appear before the Arbitrator on 9.8.2010 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. With these directions, this petition stands disposed of. (MUKUL MUDGAL) CHIEF JUSTICE 04.05.2010 'ravinder'