M. K. Chawla ( 1 ) IN a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, the case set up by the petitioner, M/s. Chandan and Sehgal, Engineers and Contractors, Karol Bagh, New Delhi in brief is that respondent No. 2, the Executive Engineer, Najafgarh Drainage Division No. II, Flood Control Department of the Delhi Administration floated a tender for the works entitled as "increasing capacity of N. G. Drain from Dhansa Regulator to Bharat Bridge (SH) Extension of Dhulsiras Bridge at RD 30500 of Najafgarh Drain". The petitioner submitted its tenders and the same were accepted vide respondent s tetter dated 12-2-81. In pursuance of the acceptance of tender a formal agreement was also executed between the parties. ( 2 ) IN compliance with the award of the work, the petitioner submitted his report along with drawings for approval which were ultimately given on 8-5. 81. During the progress of the work the petitioner submitted a bill of Rs. 18. 000. 00 which has not yet been paid. The work was delayed due to the non availability of the supplies which the respondents were required to make during the course of the execution of the job. In order to get over the difficulties which had been pointed out by the petitioners, the respondents by their letter dated 30-10-82 rescinded the contract without any sufficient cause, to which the petitioner sent the replies. ( 3 ) THE agreement contained an arbitration clause which was duly invoked by the petitioner vide his letter dated 3-8-83 requiring them to appoint an arbitrator. The respondents instead sought the recovery of a sum of Rs. 7,649. 46 from the petitioner. Now the disputes mentioned in para 21 of the plaint have arisen which are required to be referred to the sole arbitrator to be appointed by the Chief Engineer, FCW, Incharge of the work. ( 4 ) THE respondents in reply did not dispute the award of the work to the petitioner and the execution of the agreement. However, they took up the stand that in spite of the extension of time for completing the job the petitioner adopted delaying tactics and failed to complete the same as a result of which the respondents sufferred heavy damages. However, they took up the stand that in spite of the extension of time for completing the job the petitioner adopted delaying tactics and failed to complete the same as a result of which the respondents sufferred heavy damages. The petitioner was also served with Show Cause Notice as to why an action be not taken against him but in spite of that the petitioner did not care to complete the job within the extended period. In fact no amount is due to the petitioner nor he is entitled to a specific sum of Rs. 18000. 00as stated in the petition. The disputes mentioned in the petition do not arise out of the contract and are not liable to be referred to the sole arbitrator. The claims, if any, have already been adjusted and nothing remains to be paid to the petitioner. The petition under these circumstances merits dismissal. ( 5 ) IN the replication the petitioner controverted each and every fact mentioned in the written statement and reiterated the fact as stated in the petition. ( 6 ) ON the pleadings of the parties the following issue were framed : - 1. Whether the disputes mentioned in the petition as well as the counter claim of the respondent are liable to be referred to be Arbitrator ? 2. Relief. ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the parties agreed that the evidence in the case can be led by way of filing affidavits. The claimant preferred to file the affidavit of Sh. Ram Prakash Chandan, a partner of the petitioner firm. The respondents in spite of repeated opportunities having been granted have not cared to file the counter affidavit. ( 8 ) 1 have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and with their help gone through the record carefully. ( 9 ) THE respondents, in their reply have not disputed the facts mentioned in para No. 1 to 5 of the petition which state, that in compliance with the floating of a tender for the works entitled as "increasing capacity of N. G. Drain from Dhansa Regulator to Bharat Bridge (SH) Extension of Dhulsiras Bridge at RD 30500 of Najafgarh Drain", the petitioner submitted the tender which was ultimately accepted. The formal agreement was also executed between the parties. The formal agreement was also executed between the parties. In paragraphs 4 and 5, it is also slated that as per the terms of the agreement the petitioner submitted the soil test report and the drawings for approval which were duly approved vide letters of the respondent dated 8-5-81. It is also not disputed that the petitioner started the work in right earnest but in spite of his best efforts could not complete the same within the stipulated period. It is also not disputed that the time for completing the work was extended from time to time. ( 10 ) IT is the case of the petitioner that he could not complete the job because of the non-cooperation of the respondent and the delay for the non availability of the supplies from the respondents. The respondents on the other hand held the petitioner responsible for adopting delaying tactics and not completing the job within the stipulated period. Furthermore, the petitioner submitted running bills the "amount of which has not yet been settled whereas the respondents stand is that the claims have since been settled and nothing remains to be paid to the petitioner for the job in question. There is also a dispute as to which party is at fault and whether the contract was rightly rescinded by the respondents. The fact remains that various disputes mentioned in the petition relate to the contract and arise out of the agreement. The respondents have also claimed certain amounts from the petitioner as per their reply. All these disputes can only be gone into by a sole arbitrator to be appointed by virtue of clause 25 of the Agreement, which is not in dispute. ( 11 ) AS a result of the above discussion I hereby accept the petition and direct the Chief Engineer, FCW, Incharge of Works to appoint a sole arbitrator to enter upon the reference and decide the disputes mentioned in the petition. The sole arbitrator shall also be entitled to entertain the counter claim of the respondent. He shall announce and publish the award within a statutory period of 4 months from the date he enters upon the reference.