Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S Lion Services Ltd vs Municipal Corporation Mohali Punjab on 28 October, 2024
KAMAL SHARMA
2024.10.29 14:44
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Chandigarh.
ARB-197-2023 -2-
was extended upto February, 2022. She submits that some disputes arose
between the parties as the respondent withheld amounts payable to the
petitioner. By making a reference to legal notice dated 25.07.2022,
Annexure P-10, she submits that the petitioner called upon the respondent
for "direct discussion" as laid down in Clause 11.2 of the Contract, but, the
discussions did not fructify into any settlement. Counsel submits that the
petitioner invoked the Arbitration Clause by serving another legal notice
dated 01.10.2022, Annexure P-11 and nominated an Arbitrator, and by a
subsequent notice dated 02.05.2023, Annexure P-14, petitioner replaced the
proposed Arbitrator by another nominee. He submits that the notices,
Annexures P-11 and P-14, respectively, have remained unattended.
3. Upon notice by this Court, petition has been contested by the
respondent by filing a response, wherein it has been submitted that a
Committee was constituted in December, 2021 and it submitted a report on
17.02.2022. Some additional amount, which was found due, was duly
disbursed to the petitioner and the petitioner is not entitled to further
payment. He urges that a representative of the petitioner was a member of
the Committee and as the report of the Committee was acceptable to the
petitioner, the petitioner withdrew the civil suit, which had been instituted
by it for restraining the respondent from encashing the bank guarantee.
Another argument has been raised by counsel for the respondent that notice,
Annexure P-4, infact is a fresh notice invoking the arbitration and the instant
petition, which has been filed on 02.05.2023 itself, is pre-mature as the
petitioner has not given a 30 days notice to the respondent before
authenticity of this order/judgment
approaching this Court.
4. I have heard counsel for the parties and considered their
respective submissions.
5. A perusal of notice, Annexure P-14, shows that it is in-
continuation of the notice, Annexure P-11, served by the petitioner, whereby
it had invoked the Arbitration Clause. By Annexure P-14, the petitioner has
substituted the name of the Arbitrator originally proposed by it. Annexure
P-14 can by no stretch of imagination be read as a fresh notice invoking the
Arbitration Clause. The withdrawal of the civil suit by the petitioner does
not bar the remedy under the Arbitration Act. As to whether petitioner is
entitled to the amount, as claimed by it, is a matter, which would be
determined by the Arbitrator. Therefore, arguments raised by counsel for the
respondent are rejected. As the agreement, Annexure P-1, Arbitration
Clause and the notice, Annexure P-11, invoking the said Clause are
admitted, this Court is of the view that there is no hindrance in acceding to
the prayer made in the petition.
6. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner submits that as the claim is
Rs.6.37 crore (approx.), besides interest etc., instead of appointing a Arbitral
Tribunal comprising of three Arbitrators, a sole Arbitrator be appointed, so
as to save time and expense.
7. Her request appears to be genuine and is accepted.
8. Accordingly, petition is allowed. Mr. Justice (Retd.) Ranjit Singh,
resident of H.No. 1024, Sector 27-B, Chandigarh, Mobile No.
09899791094, a former Judge of this Court, is nominated as an Arbitrator to
authenticity of this order/judgment
adjudicate the dispute between the parties, subject to compliance of
statutory provisions.
9. Parties are directed to appear before the learned Arbitrator on
date, time and place to be fixed and communicated by the learned Arbitrator
at his convenience.
10. Parties will be at liberty to raise all claims, counter claims,
defences, pleas etc. before the learned Arbitrator.
11. Needless to mention that all the questions arising between the
parties in this matter shall remain open for determination in the arbitral
proceedings and any observation hereinabove made will not be binding on
the learned Arbitrator.
12. A request letter alongwith a copy of the order be sent to Mr.
Justice (Retd.) Ranjit Singh.
(SUVIR SEHGAL)
JUDGE
28.10.2024
Kamal
Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
authenticity of this order/judgment
