M.N.BHANDARI,J. - (1.) This Arbitration Application has been filed under section 10 and 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
(2.) The learned counsel for the applicant submits that after entering into agreement, the work was performed, however, pursuant to the audit objection, recovery of Rs. 4,69,332/- was made. The applicant raised objection against it as the order for recovery was passed without an opportunity of hearing by the audit party. The applicant preferred an appeal before the Chief Engineer, which was not decided. The applicant thus sent a notice for appointment of Arbitrator but when no action was taken, the present application was filed. The prayer is to appoint an independent Arbitrator.
(3.) Learned counsel for the non-applicant submits that the application is premature because compliance of the Clause 25 of the Agreement has not been made prior to a request for appointment of the Arbitrator. In absence of compliance, the application would not be maintainable. A reference of the judgment of this Court in the case of Simpark Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. Jaipur Municipal Corporation, reported in 2013 (1) W.L.N. 111 has been given. There, in the similar circumstances, application was held to be premature. The prayer is accordingly to dismiss the application holding it to be premature or not maintainable.;