IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 17.03.2011 Arb. Case No.35 of 2009 Madan Kharbanda ...Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present : Mr. Jitender J.C.Nagpal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Lakhwinder Singh, Advocate, for the respondents. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The present petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is for appointment of an Arbitrator in respect of the disputes arising out between the parties relating to the work allotted to the petitioner for ‘renovation of Suite No.1 and Lounge Hall in ORH, making path way in stadium and providing and fixing MS fencing in stadium area on Colony No.1 DMW, Patiala’ vide acceptance letter dated 20.11.2007. The disputes have arisen between the parties, which according to the petitioner were not referred to an Arbitrator though demanded vide notice dated 24.04.2008 (Annexure P-16). In the written-statement filed on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that the Chief Mechanical Engineer posted under Diesel Loco Modernisation Works, Patiala, has not received the alleged demand of arbitration. It is further stated that the petitioner has not made any valid and legal demand for arbitrator and nor there is any post of Chief Mechanical Arb. Case No.35 of 2009 Engineer/CE or even of Chief Engineer in the Diesel Loco Modernisation Works, Patiala. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in the stand of the respondents. The communication accepting the tender was issued by the Deputy Chief Engineer, Diesel Loco Modernisation Works, Patiala on behalf of the President of India. The various communications produced by the petitioner on record show that communications were being addressed by the petitioner either to the Deputy Chief Engineer, Diesel Loco Modernisation Works, Patiala or to the Executive Engineer, Diesel Loco Modernisation Works, Patiala. The communication (Annexure P-16) is addressed to the Chief Mechanical Engineer/CE, Diesel Loco Modernisation Works, Patiala, which office ranks higher than the office of the Executive Engineer or Deputy Chief Engineer. The letter was addressed to the office of Diesel Loco Modernisation Works, Patiala. The respondents have not denied the execution of the agreement and disputes having arisen between the parties, the disputes raised by the petitioner vide Annexure P-16 are directed to be adjudicated upon by an Arbitrator in terms of Clause 64 of the Agreement between the parties. The competent authority shall appoint an Arbitrator within 30 days failing which it shall be open to the petitioner to seek appointment of an Arbitrator from this Court. Disposed of. 17.03.2011 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE 2