- (1.) The present application has been preferred for appointment of an Arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that there was agreement between the parties and as per Clause 23 whenever any dispute is arising out of the said agreement which is at Annexure 3, notice should be given initially to the Engineer in Chief and if the said dispute is not resolved, then the matter can be referred to the Chief Engineer and if it is also not resolved, thereafter, the matter can be referred to the Arbitrator. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that as per Annexure 13 dated 8th February, 2010, a notice was given to the Engineer in charge, but, the dispute could not be resolved as per Clause 23 and, therefore, again notice dated 19th March, 2010 which is at Annexure 15 was given to the Chief Engineer and, thereafter also, the dispute could not be resolved and, therefore, this arbitration application has been preferred for appointment of an Arbitrator and the petitioner has no objection if any retired judge of this Court is appointed as an Arbitrator.
(3.) Learned counsel for the State submitted that they have filed detailed counter affidavit and they are relying upon paragraph nos. 13 and 50 of the counter affidavit. It is submitted that the petitioner has not come with clean hand and they have withdrawn the bank guarantee scrupulously in collusion with the officers of the Canara Bank, for which, F.I.R. has also been lodged. Moreover, it is submitted by learned counsel for the State that the petitioner has not supplied necessary design, drawing and specification and, therefore, this application may not be entertained by this Court.;