IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 08.04.2011 Arb. Case No.144 of 2010 M/s Traffic Media (India) Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present : Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Mohnish Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.2. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The petitioner has sought appointment of an Arbitrator by invoking provisions of Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the Act’). The parties entered into an Agreement on 12.07.2006, whereby the petitioner was awarded work for construction running and maintenance of Kiosks on street light poles at different locations within Municipal Corporation, Faridabad. Arbitration Clause between the parties reads as under: “28. That all disputes arising out of or in any way touching or concerning this contract shall be referred to the sole arbitration, the Commissioner, the Municipal Corporation, Faridabad or its nominee so appointed by him. There will be no objection from the Company to any such appointment on the ground that the arbitrator so appointed is a Govt. servant/MCF officer. The award of the arbitrator so appointed shall be final and binding on both the parties.” Arb. Case No.144 of 2010 The disputes between the parties arose after the petitioner was served with a show cause notice to terminate the contract on 26.07.2010 (Annexure P-13). Thereafter, the petitioner sought appointment of an Arbitrator in respect of disputes by way of legal notice dated 20.09.2010 (Annexure P-17). Aggrieved against the said notice, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act, in which the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction has granted ad interim injunction. Simultaneously, the petitioner has sought adjudication of the disputes by way of arbitration and moved the present petition. In the written statement filed on behalf of respondent No.2, the respondent had not disputed either the arbitration clause or the fact that the petitioner has requested for appointment of an Arbitrator and that there is no dispute. Since the respondents have failed to appoint an Arbitrator, therefore, the respondents are precluded from appointing an Arbitrator in view of the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported as Datar Switchgears Ltd. Vs. Tata Finance Ltd and another (2000) 8 SCC 151 and Union of India v. Bharat Battery Mfg. Co. (P) Ltd.,(2007) 7 SCC 684. Consequently, Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.K.Kapoor (Retd.), resident of H.No.407, Sector-6, Panchkula, is appointed as an Arbitrator to adjudicate upon all the disputes arising between the parties. The Arbitrator shall fix his fee in consultation with the parties on the first date of hearing. 08.04.2011 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE 2