- (1.) The present petition is for appointment of an Arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the 'Act') in respect of the dispute arising between the parties out of an Agreement dated 2.12.1999. Vide the aforesaid Agreement, Petitioner was given a contract for maintenance of Karnal-Kaithal Road. In the aforesaid Agreement, the employer is defined as Engineer-in-Chief, Haryana PWD (B and R); the Engineer as M/s Carl Bro International a/s Denmark and adjudicator as Shri R.A. Goel EIC (Retd.) PWD, B and R.
(2.) The work was completed on 30.4.2002 as per the Contract. Thereafter, the Petitioner submitted its claim to the Engineer-in-Chief on 15.1.2003 (Annexure P-4). Subsequently, final payments have been released on 18.3.2003. It was on 30.4.2003 (Annexure P-5), Shri M.K. Sen, Chief Engineer (Retd.), Punjab PWD, (B and R) was nominated by the Petitioner as its Arbitrator and called upon Engineer-in-Chief to nominate its Arbitrator. Subsequently, when no response was received from the Respondents, the Petitioner requested the President of Indian Road Congress, New Delhi for appointment of an Arbitrator in terms of the Arbitration Clause in the aforesaid Agreement. Since, no action has been taken, the Petitioner filed the present petition for appointment of an Arbitrator under the Act on 9.3.2006.
(3.) On behalf of Respondents, it has been stated that the Petitioner has not followed the procedure for resolution of disputes, firstly by an Engineer and later by an Adjudicator. The Petitioner can seek resolution of disputes by an Arbitrator only against the decision of the Adjudicator. Therefore, the petition without taking recourse to the agreed procedure of resolution of disputes is not maintainable.;