GHULAM MOHI-UD-DIN WANI Vs. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant petition filed under Section 11 of the Jammu and Kashmir Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1997 (for brevity the Act ') prays for appointment of an arbitrator. On 04.05.2005 some work was allotted to the petitioner and an agreement was executed. The petitioner asserts that he has executed the work in terms of the agreement dated 04.05.2005 and had submitted bills for the cost of execution. It is claimed that there exists a dispute. On 05.10.2010 a legal notice was issued by the petitioner to respondents for appointment of arbitrator to resolve the dispute.

(2.) IN order to succeed in an application filed under Section 11 of the Act the existence of arbitration clause in addition to many other factors is sine qua non. In reply to the aforesaid question posed by the Court learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on clause 20 of the agreement and claimed that it is an arbitration clause. Clause 20 of the agreement dated 04.05.2005 is set out below in ex tenso: -

(3.) ONE of the necessary attributes as disclosed in para (ii) above is that the party must have agreed that the decision of the arbitrator in respect of the dispute will be binding on them. The other equally essential attribute is that the dispute has to be settled after hearing of both the parties.