Himachal Pradesh High Court
Contractor vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 9 December, 2021
Bench: Mohammad Rafiq
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
ON THE 9th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ,
CHIEF JUSTICE
ARBITRATION CASE No.93 of 2021
Between:-
RAKESH VIJ GOVERNMENT
CONTRACTOR, SON OF SH. G.D. VIJ,
VIJ HOUSE, CHOTTA SHIMLA, SHIMLA
......PETITIONER
(BY SH. SUMEET RAJ SHARMA,
ADVOCATE, THROUGH VIDEO
CONFERENCING)
AND
1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
THROUGH SECRETARY I & PH, HP
SECRETARIAT SHIMLA
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, I & PH
DIVISION ROHRU DISTRICT SHIMLA, HP.
......RESPONDENTS
(BY VIKAS RATHORE, ADDITIONAL
ADVOCATE GENERAL, THROUGH VIDEO,
CONFERENCING)
This petition coming on for orders this day, the
Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Notice of this petition was served on the respondents on
10.9.2021 and time was granted to file reply, but till date reply has
not been filed. The learned Additional Advocate General prayed
adjournment for the same purpose but considering however, the
total claim is for Rs.20 lacs and that the petitioner has already
invoked the Arbitration Clause of the Agreement by serving notice on
.
the respondents, this Court is persuaded to appoint an arbitrator.
2. The petitioner is before this Court in this petition under
Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short
'the Act'), seeking for appointment of an Arbitrator to resolve the
dispute that has arisen between the parties.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that there was an
agreement, vide Annexure P-2, between the petitioner and the
respondents and accordingly a contract was entered into between
the parties in respect of work annual repair, running and
maintenance of sewerage system to Rohru Town (Sh:- Operation
and maintainers of 1.015 MLD capacity STP Rohru Town including
Sewerage network in Tehsil Rohru vide award letter dated
24.11.2011 bearing No. IPH-RD-AB-Award Letter/11-7259-64 for
Rs.27,95,00/- with the stipulated period of 24 reckoning from the
same day after the date of written order to commence the work is
received. Certain disputes have arisen thereon. Clause-25 of the
agreement provides for appointment of an Arbitrator.
4. Under Section 11(6) of the Act, the High Court, while
considering any application under Section 11(6) thereof, must
confine its examination only to the existence of an Arbitration
agreement. Since the existence of an arbitration agreement has not
been disputed by the respondents, this application deserves to be
.
allowed, and the dispute referred to arbitration.
5. Having considered the contentions of both sides,
Sh. R.L. Azad, retired District and Sessions Judge, is appointed as
an Arbitrator, after his disclosure in writing is obtained in terms of
Section 11(8) of the Act and only after receipt thereof, shall his
appointment, as an Arbitrator, come into force.
6. On his giving consent to arbitrate the dispute between
the parties, as an Arbitrator, Sh. R.L. Azad, retired District and
Sessions Judge, resident of village and PO Ropri Tehsil Ani District
Kullu, HP, shall enter into reference, and shall pass an award in
accordance with law. Copy of this order be forwarded to the learned
counsel for the parties, as also to the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator so
appointed shall be entitled to fee as per stipulation contained in
fourth schedule appended to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996.
7. The arbitration petition is disposed of accordingly.
( Mohammad Rafiq )
Chief Justice
December 09, 2021
(cm Thakur)
