Punjab-Haryana High Court
***** vs State Of Haryana And Another on 12 July, 2013
Author: Sanjay Kishan Kaul
Bench: Sanjay Kishan Kaul
Arb. Case No. 163 of 2012 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
*****
Arb. Case No. 163 of 2012 Date of decision : July 12, 2013 ***** Prithvi Singh ............Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another ...........Respondent ***** CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE ***** Present: Mr. Vivek Khatri, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Suvineet Sharma, Addl. A.G, Haryana.
***** Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Chief Justice The present writ petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been filed. The allegation is that the respondents have failed to appoint their Arbitrator through the petitioner has already appointed his Arbitrator.
The only plea urged by the learned counsel for the respondents is that in terms of Clause 67 of the Arbitration Clause providing for procedure for arbitration, sub-clause 1 provides that where the party invoking arbitration is the contractor, no reference for arbitration shall be maintainable unless the contractor furnishes to the satisfaction of the Resident Engineer-in-charge of the work a security deposit of a sum determined according to details given Arb. Case No. 163 of 2012 2 therein. Since the claim was more than Rs.1,00,000/-, 10% of the amount was required to be deposited as security. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that prior to this there could not be any question of default on the part of the respondents in appointment of Arbitrator in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur and others vs M/s Rajesh Construction Company, 2007(5) SCC 344.
Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the requirement of the petitioner to deposit 10% of the claim amount as security and submits that he will comply with the same within a period of two weeks. The respondents would thereafter appoint their Arbitrator within a period of two weeks of such deposit. Needless to say, the Arbitrators will select presiding officer and the Arbitration Tribunal will conclude the arbitration as soon as possible.
The petition accordingly stands disposed of.
July 12, 2013 ( SANJAY KISHAN KAUL ) ritu Chief Justice