Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rakesh Kumar Gupta vs Kurukshetra University on 14 September, 2012
Author: Jasbir Singh
Bench: Jasbir Singh
Arbitration Case No.172 of 2011(O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Arbitration Case No.172 of 2011(O&M)
Date of decision: 14.09.2012
Rakesh Kumar Gupta
.....Petitioner
versus
Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra and another
......Respondent
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh, Acting Chief Justice Present: Mr.I.S.Pabla, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.A.S.Virk, Advocate for the respondents Jasbir Singh, Acting Chief Justice (Oral) This petition has been filed under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short, the Act) for appointment of an Arbitrator. Vide agreement dated 23.7.2007, existence of which is not denied by counsel for the respondents, work for construction of extension of examination block of the University was allotted to the petitioner.
It is case of the petitioner that dispute arose between the parties regarding final payment. The petitioner made a request for appointment of an Arbitrator vide letter dated 16.4.2010. Thereafter, again request was made. However, when the respondents failed to appoint the Arbitrator, this petition was filed.
Upon notice, reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents. It is not disputed that as per clause 25A (1), a dispute between the parties can be settled through Arbitration. The only objection raised for non appointment of arbitrator is that since the petitioner had signed the measurement book admitting it to be correct, he cannot raise any dispute. Arbitration Case No.172 of 2011(O&M) 2 To the contrary, by placing reliance upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Durga Charan Rautrary v. State of Orissa and others 2012(2) RCR (Civil) 555, counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is not debarred from raising a dispute if it exists, despite admitting the measurement etc. to be correct.
Be that as it may, at the time of arguments, by making reference to the document (Annexure R2), dated 30.7.2010, it is stated by counsel for the respondents that the petitioner was intimated vide above letter that in case he wishes to settle the matter through arbitration, as per arbitration clause, he should submit the details of his claim and pay the requisite fee/ security as per contract agreement. To say so, reliance has been placed upon clause 7 of the contract agreement, wherein it is provided that for a claim above Rs.one lac amount @ 10% of the claimed amount has to be deposited towards security by the petitioner for appointment of an Arbitrator.
Counsel for the petitioner states that within 15 days from today, the petitioner shall submit his claim and also deposit security amount with the respondents as per terms and conditions of the agreement.
Mr.Virk states that in the event of doing so, the Arbitrator shall be appointed within 15 days thereafter.
In view of the above statement of the counsel for the parties, the issue raised in this petition for appointment of arbitrator stands resolved. No further order is required to be passed in this petition which is, accordingly, disposed of.
14.09.2012 (Jasbir Singh) gk Acting Chief Justice