M. K. Chawla ( 1 ) THE petitioner company was awarded the contract of the value of Rs. 3,35,224. 00 for the re-development of Motia Khan S. H. Surface Dressing and Disposal of Surplus Earth for which an agreement was entered into. The work was to start on 2nd February, 1984 and it was to be completed on 17. 3. 84. The said agreement contained clause 25, being Arbitration agreement between the parties. ( 2 ) AS per the averments in their petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, the case set up by the petitioner is that in compliance with the agreement the petitioner organised and procured the men, material, tools, machinery, trucks and resources needed for the due completion of the work by stipulated date of completion, By way of security deposit for the due fulfilment of the agreement the petitioner furnished to the first respondent, Delhi Development Authority, a bank guntarantee No. 62/84 dated 23. 3. 84 for Rs. 19,304. 00 issued at the instance of the petitioner by the Canada Bank, Parliament Street, New Delhi. This bank guarantee is now being wrongly and fraudulantly being invoked by the first and the second respondents. ( 3 ) ON the commencement of the works under the agreement the petitioner discovered that the first respondent had very poorly planned the works, poorly assessed the availability of site and its own organising ability to administer the works. The first respondent had not coordinated the work of the other agencies who had been employed by them to do other works on the same site. Because of the aforesaid the work that was being executed by the petitioner from time to time was interrupted, disturbed and damaged as a result of which the work also got prolonged. The petitioner, later on addressed letters to the second respondent, Sh. V. K. Kohli, the Executive Engineer of the DDA, listing claims and disputes/differences relating to the work in question. The second respondent denied and disputed the said claims and persisted his wrongful actions. Finally on 12. 7. 85 the petitioner served on the second respondent its claims and connected disputes/differences for being referred to arbitration under clause 25 of the agreement. The second respondent denied and disputed the said claims and persisted his wrongful actions. Finally on 12. 7. 85 the petitioner served on the second respondent its claims and connected disputes/differences for being referred to arbitration under clause 25 of the agreement. The petitioner also required respondent No. 3, the Engineer Member of the Delhi Development Authority to nominate person empowered under clause 25 of the agreement to appoint an arbitrator, to determine the claims and the connected disputes between the parties. The said claims do arise out of the agreement and are liable to be referred to arbitration. Hence, the petition. ( 4 ) RESPONDENTS r and 2 in their reply did not dispute the award of the work to the petitioner and the execution of the agreement and the furnishing of the bank guarantee but took up the stand that the claims raised by the petitioner are false, frivolous and do nor arise out of the agreement. It is also alleged that the petitioner has been paid for whatever work he executed or whatever was due to him and nothing further remains to be paid to him against this contract. ( 5 ) I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and with their help have gone through the record carefully. ( 6 ) THE respondents have not denied the averments of para No. 1 and 2 of the petition which state that the petitioner was awarded the contract for which an agreement was entered into between the parties. In consideration of the execution of the agreement the petitioner also furnished the bank guarantee. It is the case of the petitioner that due to the defaults of the respondents the work got prolonged as a result of which he suffered damages and lodged caims before the Executive Engineer. The stand of the respondents is that the claims of the petitioner are false and frivolous. That may be so. but it is for the arbitrator to decide the same. Clause 25 of the agreement is an arbitration clause under which the disputes arising out of the contract are to be referred to the arbitrator to he appointed by the Executive Engineer, Delhi Development Authority. In spire of the service of the notice requiring respondent No. 3 to appoint an arbitrator to decide the claims, the respondents have not taken any steps in this direction. In spire of the service of the notice requiring respondent No. 3 to appoint an arbitrator to decide the claims, the respondents have not taken any steps in this direction. The petitioner, in my opinion has made out a case for the grant of the relief in the present petition. ( 7 ) AS a result of the above discussion I accept the petition and direct respondent No. 3, the Engineer Member to appoint an arbitrator within a period of 4 weeks from today who shall enter upon the reference and decide the disputes, mentioned in the enclosure attached with the main petition. Respondents shall also be entitled to file the counter claim, if so desired. The arbitrator shall made and publish his award within a period of 4 months from the date he enters upon the reference. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not press the application and the same is hereby dismissed.