Shri Ramesh Vij vs Himachal Road Transport Corporation

Kuldip Singh, J.—This is an application u/s 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for appointment of Arbitrator. The respondents have been served, but none has put in appearance on their behalf. It has been stated that items rates given by the petitioner were accepted by the Superintending Engineer, HP Bus Stands Management and Development Authority, Shimla, through award letter dated 21.09.2007 No.HO:3-1 (254)/2006-07 Estt SML for overall amount of tender worked out to be Rs. 11,52,481/-. The petitioner executed the work successfully and requested the respondents to prepare final bill and to release the payment thereof, but no response was given by the respondents. The petitioner served notice dated 10.09.2010 requesting the appointment of Arbitrator, but no appointment was made by the respondents nor the payments have been released to the petitioner. The petitioner has placed on record copy of agreement, Clause-25 of the agreement provides appointment of Arbitrator. The petitioner has claimed an amount of Rs. 3,47,056/- along with interest at the rare of 18%. I am satisfied that there is a dispute between the parties regarding the payment and the agreement provides appointment of Arbitrator by the Managing Director of respondent No. 1.

The grievance raised by the petitioner is that despite requests made by the petitioner, the Arbitrator has not been appointed by the Managing Director of Respondent No. 1 to adjudicate the dispute between the parties. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The Superintending Engineer, Arbitration, H.P.P.W.D., Solan is appointed as Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties. The Arbitrator shall decide the dispute between the parties in accordance with law. The petition stands disposed of.