Dinesh Chander vs State of H.P. and Others

Surjit Singh, J.—Reply has not been filed, despite last opportunity having been granted to the Respondents.

Heard and gone through the record.

Petitioner was awarded the work of construction of a road, vide Agreement dated 3rd April, 2006, copy Annexure C-1. Lateron, the contract was terminated, unilaterally, by the Respondents, by means of a letter, written to the Petitioner in June, 2006. Petitioner then claimed damages, on account of loss of profit. When nothing was heard from the Respondents, Petitioner made a request to the Engineer-in-Chief, for appointment of Arbitrator, in terms of Clause-25 of the Agreement, which says that in the event of a dispute, arising between the parties, matter shall be referred to a sole Arbitrator, to be nominated by the Engineer-in-Chief or the Chief Engineer. Copy of the notice/request is Annexure C-2. It is dated 28th July, 2008. There has not been any response to that notice also.

Several opportunities have been afforded to the Respondents to file reply, but to no avail.

Looking to the facts and the circumstances of the case, petition is allowed and Shri M.D. Sharma, a retired District & Sessions Judge, is appointed as Arbitrator. His fee is fixed at Rs. 30,000/-. In addition to that he shall be paid Rs. 5,000/-, on account of ministerial expenses. Arbitrator''s fee and ministerial expenses shall be paid by the Petitioner, in the first instance. Ultimate liability of payment of fee and ministerial expenses shall be determined by the Arbitrator himself.

Petition stands disposed of.