High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Hari Singh v. Union of India & Anr - ARB-34-2004  RD-P&H 12937 (21 December 2006)
Arbitration Case No. 34 of 2004
Date of Decision: 12.01.2007
Union of India and another
Mr. P.K.Dutt, Advocate
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER JAIN,
Vijender Jain, Chief Justice (Oral)
Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has contended that full and final payment has been made and the supplementary agreement was executed and entire claim to finally settle the matter is not referable to an Arbitrator.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of this Court in Union of India and others v. M/s H.R.Construction Company and another CWP No. 1976 of 2005 decided on 8.2.2006.
Following the dictum of the aforesaid judgment, there is no force in the arguments of learned counsel for the respondents. The cross- objections against the appointment of an Arbitrator could be taken under Arbitration Case No. 34 of 2004 
Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. As per the arbitration agreement, I direct General Manager, Northern Railways to appoint two arbitrators in terms of clause 64(3)(a)(ii) of the agreement to adjudicate the dispute between the parties within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
The petition stands disposed of.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.