TARUN MAHINDRU Vs. HIMUDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'Act') for appointment of an Arbitrator.

(2.) IT has been stated in the petition that the work was awarded to the petitioner on 21.10.2008 by respondents. There is an agreement between the parties and Clause 25 of the agreement provides for appointment of an Arbitrator in case of dispute. The petitioner has executed the work but the respondents have not paid the dues of the petitioner. The petitioner has incurred loss of profit from left out work to the extent of Rs.45,00,000/-. The petitioner has also claimed damages on account of prolongation of the contract to the tune of Rs. 1.20 lacs. The petitioner has further claimed interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date when the amount became due till the realisation of the amount.

(3.) THE application has been contested by the respondents by filing reply. It has been stated that the petitioner had not executed the entire work. The claim of the petitioner has been disputed. The receipt of notice dated 7.2.2011 has not been denied. It has been contended that in the facts and circumstances of the case the petitioner is not entitled to appointment of an Arbitrator.