VIJENDER JAIN,J - (1.) THIS petition was filed before the District Judge, Amritsar. In view of the judgment in SBP and Co. v. Patel Engineering Ltd. and another, 2005(4) RCR(Civil) 747 : (2005)8 SCC 618, the present petition was transferred to this Court.
(2.) CLAUSE 25 of the agreement regarding arbitration is not disputed between the parties. Clause 25 inter alia states that the provisions of Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 or any other statutory enactment thereunder or modification thereof and for the time being in force shall apply to the arbitration proceedings under this clause. Petitioner issued a legal notice to the respondents invoking the arbitration clause for settling the disputes inter se the parties. That notice was sent by the petitioner on 18.11.2002, which is at page 121 of the paper- book. Notice was served on the respondents. However, the respondents chose not to reply the said notice. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition under Sections 8 and 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the District Judge, Amritsar some times in May, 2003. The respondents filed the reply in August, 2003.
(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the respondents has contended that in the reply the stand taken by the respondents was that the petitioner was not an approved contractor. It was further stated in the reply that the quality of the work executed by the petitioner was not up to the mark and lastly it was stated that all payments due have been made to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondents has taken the same objections and contended that when there was no due towards the respondents, no Arbitrator could have been appointed.;