AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Surjit Singh, J.—Heard and gone through the record.
Some construction work was awarded to the Petitioner by the Respondents, through an agreement, in writing. Agreement is Annexure C-1. It contains an arbitration clause, per which, in case of a dispute, Arbitrator is to be appointed by the Commandant/Accepting Authority, impleaded as Respondent No. 2, herein. Petitioner approached Respondent No. 2 for appointment of an Arbitrator, because of a dispute having arisen out of the agreement. Request was made, in writing, on 28th July, 2010, vide Annexure C-5. There was no response from the Respondents, within stipulated thirty days period. Therefore, present petition was filed on 23rd September, 2010.
In the reply, it is not denied that there was an agreement nor has it been denied that a dispute has arisen, but it is stated that the matter has been referred to the Director General ITBP, for detailment of Arbitrator. No person is named in the reply, who is detailed to act as Arbitrator. Thus, the reply is too vague to be taken note of. Otherwise also, Arbitrator having not been appointed, within the stipulated period of thirty days, Respondent No. 2 is now not having any legal right to appoint an Arbitrator.
In view of the abovestated position, Shri Neeraj Gupta, 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 `20,000/-, plus `5,000/- secretarial expenses. Arbitrator''s fee shall be initially paid by the Petitioner and the Arbitrator will adjudicate who is to finally bear the burden of his fee.
Petition stands disposed of.