IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Arbitration Case No. 16 of 2009
Date of Decision: 28.08.2009
Jastinder Singh ..Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab and others. ..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.THAKUR,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. Vishal Gupta, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Ms. Madhu Dayal, Addl. A.G. Punjab
for the respondents.
*****
T.S.Thakur, C.J. (Oral)
In this petition under Section 11(6)of the Arbitration &
Conciliation Act, 1996, the petitioner seeks a reference to an
independent Arbitrator for adjudication of certain disputes that have
arisen between the parties in relation to certain civil works for
construction of an alternate water supply scheme allotted to the
petitioner for execution. That an arbitration clause exists in the notice
inviting tenders, which was a part of the agreement between the parties,
is not disputed. According to the petitioner disputes having arisen, a
Arbitration Case No. 16 of 2009 [2]
notice was sent to the respondents to agree to the appointment of an
Arbitrator for adjudication of the same. Since no Arbitrator was
nominated by the respondents, the filing of the present petition under
Section 11(6) of the Act became unavoidable.
On behalf of the respondents, it is on the other hand
submitted that no notice like the one alleged in the application was ever
received by the respondents, there was, therefore, no question of
responding to the same by nominating an Arbitrator. It was alternatively
submitted that no dispute exists between the parties, which could call
for adjudication whether by way of arbitration or otherwise.
In so far as the first aspect viz. whether a notice was served
upon the respondents is concerned, the petitioner has placed on record a
copy of notice marked as Annexure P-12 and asserted that the same was
despatched by registered AD. That assertion is supported by an affidavit
also. That apart even after filing of this petition and issue of a notice
from this Court, the respondents have not chosen to appoint an
Arbitrator within a period of 30 days from the date of the receipt of the
Court notice. There is no explanation forthcoming for that failure either
the only explanation being appeared is that according to the
respondents there are no disputes which call for any process of
adjudication. That explanation does not stand closer scrutiny. It is trite
that a claim made by the petitioner when denied by the other party
gives rise to a dispute calling for adjudication. That such a denial has
been made in the present case is evident from the pleadings.
In the circumstances, a reference to an arbitration has
indeed become necessary. I accordingly allow this petition and refer the
Arbitration Case No. 16 of 2009 [3]
disputes between the parties to the sole arbitration of Justice A.L.Bahri,
former Judge of this Court. The parties shall appear before the
Arbitrator for directions on 19.09.2009 at 10.00 A.M. The Arbitrator
fee is fixed at Rs. 10000/- per hearing subject to a maximum of
Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. One lac) to be deposited by the parties in the ratio
and the manner directed by the Arbitrator. No costs.
(T.S.THAKUR)
CHIEF JUSTICE
28.08.2009
‘ravinder’