Rajesh Thakur vs State of H.P. and Others

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

Petitioner submitted a tender, for executing some work for the Respondents, in response to an advertisement got published by the Respondents. His tender was accepted and an Agreement was executed between the parties. Clause 25 of the Agreement provided for settlement of the disputes, arising between the parties, by arbitration. Petitioner completed the work and submitted final bill for Rs. 90,70,000/-. However, he was paid only a sum of Rs. 40,00,000/-, out of that bill. Rest of the money having not been paid to him, despite repeated demands and reminders, he made an application to the Chief Engineer (South) for appointing an Arbitrator, in terms of Clause-25 of the Agreement, which provides for reference of disputes, arising out of the agreement, to arbitration of a person to be nominated by the Engineer-in-Chief/Chief Engineer (South).

Demand for appointment was made vide communication dated 24th May, 2010, Annexure C-3. When there was no response from the Chief Engineer (South), this petition, u/s 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, was filed on 27th July, 2010.

Respondents have also some claims against the Petitioner, as per their reply. However, they have not offered any explanation for not appointing an Arbitrator, despite a demand by the Petitioner, vide Annexure C-3.

In view of the abovestated position, Shri Ajay Dhiman, Advocate, who is present in the Court and has expressed his willingness, is appointed as Arbitrator in the case. He shall give award within six months. His fee is fixed at Rs. 25,000/-, plus Rs. 5,000/- secretarial expenses. The fee of the Arbitrator is not so high. The reason is that in another similar matter he has been appointed as Arbitrator where his fee has been fixed at Rs. 50,000/- plus secretarial expenses of Rs. 5,000/-.

Petition stands disposed of.