N. C. Kochhar ( 1 ) UNION of India (the respondent) had awarded the contract for the wholesale supply of 50 degree UP Rum strength to retail sale departmental country liquor-cum-beer vends in the Union Territory of Delhi during the year 1984-85 to Central Distillery and Breweries Ltd. (the applicant ). Agreement dated 27th December, 1984 was executed between the parties. This agreement has an arbitration clause No. 26 which reads as under : "all disputes and differences arising out of or in any way touching or concerning this indenture (except those the decision whereof is otherwise hereinbefore provided for) shall be referred to the sole arbitration of any person nominated by the Lt. Governor of Delhi or in case his designation is changed or his office is abolished, to the sole arbitration of any person nominated by the Officer who for the time being is entrusted, whether or not in addition to other functions with the functions of the Lt. Governor of Delhi by whatever designation such officer may be called. It will be no objection to any such appointment that the arbitrator so appointed is a government servant that he had to deal with the matters to which this indenture relates and that in the course of his duties as such Government servant he has expressed views on all or any of the matters in dispute or difference. The award of the arbitrator so appointed shall be final and binding on the parties," ( 2 ) THE applicant has moved this application under section 20 of the Arbitration Act for filing of the arbitration agreement in court and for referring the disputes between the applicant and the respondent to arbitration. It has been stated that on 31st January, 1985 ie. after the execution of the agreement between the parties, the Excise Department of the State of Uttar Pradesh made an upward revision in the export pass fee for Indian made foreign liquor/beer distributed outside the State of Uttar Pradesh from Rs. 4. 84 to Rs. 10. 26 per case of 12 bottles of 750 mililitres each. Consequently invoices claiming a sum of Rs. 1,03,706. 28 have been submitted by the applicant to the respondent but the respondent has neither paid the amount nor has referred the disputes to the arbitrator in spite of various requests made by the applicant in this behalf. 84 to Rs. 10. 26 per case of 12 bottles of 750 mililitres each. Consequently invoices claiming a sum of Rs. 1,03,706. 28 have been submitted by the applicant to the respondent but the respondent has neither paid the amount nor has referred the disputes to the arbitrator in spite of various requests made by the applicant in this behalf. The applicant has thus prayed that the arbitration agreement between the parties be filed in court and reference of the dispute be made to a person to be appointed by the Lt. Governor of Delhi. ( 3 ) IN the reply the fact that the parties have entered into an agreement has not been disputed and on the contrary a photostat copy of the agreement containing the abovesaid arbitration clause has been filed by the respondent. The only contention raised is that in view of the fact that the rates quoted by the applicant had been accepted by the respondent and the said rates were inclusive of all charges, the applicant is not entitled to claim anything because of increase in the excise by the State of Uttar Pradesh. It is not pointed out to me as to how the dispute regarding charges being claimed is not covered by arbitration clause and why this application should not be allowed. ( 4 ) CONSEQUENTLY, I allow this application and direct that the arbitration agreement be filed in court and a direction be issued to the Lt. Governor of Delhi to appoint an arbitrator within a period of two months from today to decide the dispute mentioned in para 6 of the petition. The respondent would also pay the costs of these proceedings to the applicant. Counsel fee Rs. 500. Suit No. 2137-A/86 stands decided accordingly.