Arbitration Case No. 10 of 2006 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Arbitration Case No. 10 of 2006 Date of Decision: 17.03.2010 Steel Strips Wheels Limited ..Petitioner Versus M/s International Power Presses ..Respondent 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. Akshay Bhan, Advocate, for the petitioner. *** MUKUL MUDGAL, C.J. (Oral) 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ' the Act), for appointment of Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties. 2. Clause 23 of the agreement contains the Arbitration Clause which reads as under:- “Any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this agreement, or its breach, shall be finally settled by Indian Arbitration Act. The work under this agreement shall, if reasonably possible, continue during the arbitration proceedings.” Arbitration Case No. 10 of 2006 [2] 3. Though the office has reported that notice issued to the respondents has not been received back served or otherwise, but learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court towards letter dated 3.6.2008 sent by 'The Wilkes Partnership' to this Court stating as under:- “ APPLICATION IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH OF ARB. 10/2006. OUR FORMER CLIENTS: INTERNATIONAL POWER PRESSES LIMITED, GRAZEBROOK INDUSTRIAL PARK, PEARTREE LANE, DUDLEY, WEST MIDLANDS UNITED KINGDOM. We act on behalf of Hulbert International Limited. We enclose herewith a letter we have sent to Steel Strips Wheels Limited on the 23rd November, 2007. At the address of our clients they have received a notification of a hearing on the 7th July, 2008, a copy of which we enclose for your reference. This is stated to be an application in your court in a matter called “Steel Strips Wheels Limited V. International Power Presses.” We write to notify you that the company International Power Presses Limited No. 01241189 changed its name to Speed 8028 Limited and ultimately was dissolved under Section 652 of the Companies Act on the 13 February, 2001. As such, it is not possible as a matter of English Law for a claim to be brought against that company. The only basis upon which any claim could proceed against International Power Presses Limited as a matter of English Law as if company is reinstated to the Companies Register. We are not instructed further in this matter and write this letter out of courtesy to your court. Yours faithfully, Sd/-The Wilkes Partnership” 4. To rebut the contents of the aforesaid letter that respondent-company was dissolved on 13.2.2001, Mr. Bhan has drawn attention of this Court to a copy of notice dated 20.3.2003 issued by an Advocate of Supreme Court of India on behalf of respondent raising a claim against the petitioner. The contents of the said letter would show Arbitration Case No. 10 of 2006 [3] that an Advocate was acting for M/s International Power Presses Ltd. as late as 20.3.2003, in contradiction to the averments made in the notice dated 3.6.2008 that M/s International Power Presses Ltd. was dissolved on 13.2.2001. On the strength of the aforesaid letter, Mr. Bhan contends that the respondent had the knowledge of the notice of pendency of this petition in this Court but it is deliberately not appearing before this Court. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and on going through the aforesaid letter, I find that while sending the letter dated 3.6.2008, 'The Wilkes Partnership company' also appended therewith a photostat copy of the notice issued by this Court to M/s International Power Presses Ltd. for 7.7.2008. The contents of that letter that M/s International Power Presses Ltd. was dissolved on 13.2.2001 appears to be wrong in view of letter dated 20.3.2003 issued by an Advocate on instructions from M/s International Power Presses Ltd. raising a claim against the petitioner and proposing the names of three retired Judges for appointment as an Arbitrator. The position explained above clearly indicates that M/s International Power Presses Ltd. has due notice of this petition and asserted its legal rights as recently as 20th March, 2003 and it deliberately has chosen not to appear before this Court. Accordingly, the respondent company is proceeded against exparte. 6. Since no body is present on behalf of the respondent to rebut the averments made in the petition, this Court has no option but to accept the same and allow this petition filed for appointment an Arbitrator as per the stipulation made in Arbitration Clause 23 of the Arbitration Case No. 10 of 2006 [4] agreement. 7. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and Mrs. Justice Bakshish Kaur, a former Judge of this Court is appointed as a sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties. In the meanwhile, the parties will exchange the statements of claim and response thereof. The statement of claim be supplied to the office of the respondent and its counsel who had issued notice dated 20.3.2003 including the office of M/s Wilkes Partnership within four weeks and the respondents shall on receipt thereof send their response within four weeks. The parties shall appear before the Arbitrator on 24.6.2010 at 4.00 P.M. 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. The Arbitrator shall fix her own fee. Petition stands disposed of. (MUKUL MUDGAL) CHIEF JUSTICE 17.03.2010 'ravinder'