Man Das vs State of H.P. and Another

Surjit Singh, J.—Heard and gone through the record.

A work was awarded to the Petitioner by the Respondents, by means of Agreement Annexure P-1. Agreement provided for settlement of dispute, if any, arising between the parties, through arbitration. As per Clause-25, in the event of a dispute arising, the same would be referred to the arbitration of a sole arbitrator, to be nominated by the Chief Engineer or Engineer-in-Chief, on being approached by the Petitioner. Petitioner submitted final bill on 12th August, 2009. A part of the amount of the bill was paid to him and the claim, with respect to the rest of it was rejected. Petitioner then approached the Chief Engineer to appoint an Arbitrator, vide notice dated 12th August, 2010, copy Annexure P-3. No action has been taken on the said notice, within the period stipulated by law, i.e. thirty days period. So, the Petitioner has filed this petition, u/s 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for appointment of Arbitrator.

Respondents, despite having been afforded a number of opportunities, have not filed reply. On 22nd December, 2010, when the matter was adjourned for filing reply, it was made clear that that was the last opportunity. Despite such clarification, reply has not been filed.

Since the averments made in the petition have not been controverted and the dispute, on the face of it, appears to be alive and surviving, petition is allowed and Shri L.K. Vaidya, Superintending Engineer (Design), IPH, Hamirpur, who is stated to have been appointed as Arbitrator in another similar matter, between the same parties, is appointed as Arbitrator in this case, also. His fee is fixed at Rs. 25,000/- plus ministerial expenses of Rs. 5,000/-. His fee and ministerial expenses shall be paid by the Petitioner, in the first instance and the ultimate liability shall be adjudicated upon by the Arbitrator, while giving the award.

Petition stands disposed of.