Punjab-Haryana High Court
Executive Officer vs M/S 3- Dimensions on 13 February, 2011
Author: Jasbir Singh
Bench: Jasbir Singh
Arbitration Case No.56 of 2011 1
In the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh
Arbitration Case No.56 of 2011
Date of decision: 13.02.2013
Executive Officer, Municipal Corporation, Karnal
......Petitioner
Versus
M/s 3- Dimensions, New Delhi
...Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh
Present: Mr.Kuldip Singh, Advocate for
Mr.Gaurav Singh Hooda, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr.H.P.S.Ishar, Advocate for
Mr.Rajeev Kaswan, Advocate for the respondent
Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral)
On behalf of the Municipal Corporation at Karnal, its Executive Officer has filed this petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short, the Act), for appointment of an Arbitrator to settle dispute inter-se the petitioner and respondent No.1.
Upon notice, reply has not been filed.
Be that as it may, as per admitted facts a contract agreement was entered into between the Municipal Corporation, Karnal and respondent No.1 on 18.7.2000 (Annexure P1). As per agreement, the petitioner was to provide space of 200 square feet at each bus stop within the municipal limits for ten years on nominal lease basis i.e. Rs.12,000/- per bus stop per year. Lease was to be paid annually. There was a provision for increase of the lease amount @ 10% after every three years. In the space so provided, Arbitration Case No.56 of 2011 2 respondent No.1 was to errect bus stand and also to make sitting arrangements for the passengers, public telephone booth, stalls etc. As per averments made in this petition, respondent No.1 failed to provide the requisite facilities as agreed between the parties in terms of contract agreement mentioned above. Despite writing many letters, the execution was not taken up`. Full amount of the lease money was also not deposited. It is further stated that when respondent No.1 failed to execute the contract, it was terminated on 13.11.2002 vide memo No.1400-MCK. To settle the dispute, matter was taken up before the named Arbitrator i.e. the Commissioner, Rohtak Division at Rohtak. However, the matter was not taken up by the said Arbitrator by stating that there is no order to act as an Arbitrator issued by the High Court.
Under the circumstances, this petition has been filed for appointment of an independent Arbitrator.
Before proceeding further, it is necessary to note down the provisions of Clause 17 of the contract agreement which reads thus:-
"17. In case of dispute, if any will be settled through the Arbitration by the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak who shall act as arbitrator on the matter exercising powers under the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1996"
It is agreed between the parties that in case of dispute, it can be settled by way of arbitration through the named Arbitration. In tune with the above provision, this petition has been filed for appointment an Arbitrator.
To the prayer made, it is stated that the claim raised is time Arbitration Case No.56 of 2011 3 barred. The contract agreement was terminated on 13.11.2002. This petition has been filed in the year 2011 i.e. after about nine years of the date of termination of the contract agreement, as such, it is not maintainable. To the contrary it is stated by counsel for the petitioner that the dispute is still going on between the parties. In the year 2006, when notice terminating the contract was issued and respondent No.1 was directed to deposit the lease amount, it went to the Civil Court by filing Civil Suit No.322 of 2002. That suit was dismissed by the competent Civil Court on 20.1.2006. Respondent No.1 went in appeal which was dismissed on 18.3.2009. Thereafter, the matter was taken up with the named Arbitrator. At his refusual, this petition was filed. Be that as it may, question whether claim raised by the petitioner is time barred or not, is left open to be decided by the arbitral Tribunal.
Taking note of facts and circumstances of this case and as per Clause 17 of the Contract agreement (P1), to settle dispute between the parties, Shri Vinod Jain, District and Sessions Judge (retired), H.No.1, Chaman Garden, Railway Road, District Karnal is appointed as an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator shall charge his fee and expenses as per norms fixed by this Court.
13.02.2013 (Jasbir Singh) gk Judge