- (1.) This is an application made by the contractor for appointment of an Arbitrator under Section 11(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). It is admitted case that an agreement had been entered into between the parties on 25.7.1996 and after execution of some of the work, a dispute had arisen between the contractor and the respondent. The contractor accordingly wrote a letter, Annexure A-3, dated 9.11.2000 addressed to the Chief Engineer-cum-Arbitrator, Punjab Small Industries and Export Corporation Ltd., Chandigarh pointing out that a dispute had arisen and he should enter upon the arbitration as being the sole Arbitrator in terms of the contract. It is the case of the contractor that as the Arbitrator had not entered into the contract within 30 days after service of the notice, Annexure A-3, it was for the Chief Justice to appoint an Arbitrator under Section 11(4) of the Act. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Datar Switchgears Ltd. v. Tata Finance Ltd. and Anr. , to support his view that the period of 30 days fixed in the Act itself was sacrosanct and could not be extended. Mr. Gobind Goel, the learned Counsel for the respondent has, however, contended that in view of the peculiar facts of the case, the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner as also the judgments cited by him could not be applied.
(2.) After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, it appears that there is merit in the stand of the respondent. It will be seen that Section 11(4) of the Act would be applicable where despite notice an Arbitrator has not been appointed by the opposite party. In the present case, the contractor himself had stated that the Chief Engineer should be the sole arbitrator and on premise had addressed letter, Annexure A-3, directly to the Arbitrator calling upon him to enter into the arbitration and to sort out the same as per the contract. It is significant that the Chief Engineer, who was in position at the time when the notice, Annexure A-3, was issued on 9.11.2002, retied on 30.11.2000. Concededly, the successor Chief Engineer did enter into the arbitration vide notice dated 22.2.2001, Annexure R-2, with the reply. It is, therefore, clear that there has been no refusal or neglect on the part of the respondent-Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Limited to appoint an Arbitrator in terms of the contract. I am, therefore, of the opinion that Section 11(4) of the Act and the judgment in question are not applicable to the facts of the case.
(3.) The application is accordingly dismissed.;