[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Cecube Engineering Pvt. Ltd. vs Ribus Trading Solution on 18 April, 2026
Author: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Bench: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
ARB-79-2024 (O&M) -1-
203
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
***
ARB-79-2024 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 18.04.2026
Cecube Engineering Private Limited .... Applicant
Versus
Ribus Trading Solution ....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI
Present: Mr. Rahul Yadav, Advocate (through V.C.) and
Mr. Dinesh Kumar Yadav, Advocate,
for the applicant.
Mr. Pranjal Chaudhary, Advocate,
for the respondent.
****
JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J. (ORAL)
1. The present application has been filed under Section 11 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act')
praying for appointment of an independent Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon
the disputes which have arisen between the parties.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant has caused appearance
through video conferencing and submitted that the petitioner had issued a
Purchase/Work Order to the respondent which was acted upon by the parties
and various transactions and payments had also taken place between them.
The said Purchase/Work Order dated 07.01.2023 (Annexure P-1) contains a
valid arbitration clause i.e. Clause 12 which provides that all the disputes
and differences arising out of or touching the scope of this work order shall
be resolved through mutual discussions and dialogue between the parties
failing which the same shall be referred to the Sole Arbitrator to be
ARB-79-2024 (O&M) -2-
appointed by CEIPL i.e. the applicant. He further submitted that the
unilateral appointment of the Sole Arbitrator at the discretion of the
applicant-Company is not permissible under the law in view of the
amendment of the Act which was carried out in the year 2015 whereby
Section 12(5) of the Act was added as well as the law settled by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in "Central Organization for Railway Electrification Vs. M/s
ECI SPIC SMO MCML (JV) a Joint Venture Company", 2025(4) SCC 641
and "Perkins Eastman Architects DPC Vs. HSCC (India) Ltd.", 2020(20)
SCC 760. Therefore, the present application has been filed under Section 11 of
the Act for appointment of an independent Sole Arbitrator by this Court. He
also submitted that a notice under Section 21 of the Act invoking the
aforesaid arbitration clause was issued to the respondent on 21.10.2023 vide
Annexure P-7, However, no response was received from the respondent in
this regard.
3. On the other hand, Mr. Pranjal Chaudhary, learned counsel for
the respondent has submitted that there is no dispute with regard to the
existence of the aforesaid Purchase/Work Order (Annexure P-1) between the
parties which was issued by the petitioner to the respondent and has been
acted upon by both the parties. There is also no dispute regarding the
existence of the aforesaid arbitration clause in the Work Order (Annexure P-
1) and the same has been invoked by the applicant vide the aforesaid notice
dated 21.10.2023. He submitted that however, the objection of the
respondent is that the present dispute is not arbitrable in nature and there is
nothing due towards the respondent and therefore, there is no requirement
for appointment of an Arbitrator in the present matter.
4. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
ARB-79-2024 (O&M) -3-
5. The arbitration clause i.e. Clause 12 which is incorporated in
Purchase/Work Order (Annexure P-1) is reproduced as under:-
"12. Settlement of Disputes by Arbitration: All the
disputes and differences arising out of or touching the
scope of this work order shall be resolved through
mutual discussions and dialogue between the parties
failing which the same shall be referred to the Sole
Arbitrator to be appointed by CEIPL. The Award of the
Arbitrator shall be final and binding upon the parties.
The Courts alone at Gurgaon shall have the
jurisdiction."
6. The aforesaid Clause contained in the Purchase/Work Order
(Annexure P-1) and its invocation by way of notice under Section 21 of the
Act (Annexure P-7) is not in dispute. Thus, the essential conditions sine qua
non for the purpose of appointment of an Arbitrator stand satisfied.
7. The only objection raised by learned counsel for the respondent
was that there is no requirement to refer the matter to the arbitration as
nothing is due from the respondent. This objection raised by learned counsel
for the respondent is not sustainable in view of the settled law that such
objection cannot be taken before a reference Court which is considering an
application under Section 11 of the Act. It is a settled law that at the stage of
reference under Section 11 of the Act, the Court is only to see prima facie
existence of an arbitration clause in the agreement and its invocation under
Section 21 of the Act and these two essential conditions have not been
disputed by learned counsel for the respondent.
9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present
application is allowed. Mr. Justice Parkash Singh Teji, a former Judge of
ARB-79-2024 (O&M) -4-
Delhi High Court, resident of 1. House No.1467, Sector-49B, Chandigarh. 2.
D-341, (First Floor), Defence Colony, New Delhi-110024. Mobile
No.9910384615, Email ID: [email protected], is nominated as the Sole
Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties, subject to
compliance of statutory provisions including Section 12 of the Act.
10. Parties are directed to appear before the learned Arbitrator on
date, time and place to be fixed and communicated by learned Arbitrator at
his convenience.
11. Fee shall be paid to the learned Arbitrator in accordance with
the Fourth Schedule of the Arbitration Act, as amended.
12. Learned Arbitrator is also requested to complete the
proceedings as per the time limit prescribed under Section 29-A of the Act.
13. A request letter alongwith a copy of the order be sent to Mr.
Justice Parkash Singh Teji, a former Judge of Delhi High Court.
18.04.2026 (JASGURPREET SINGH PURI)
Bhumika JUDGE
1. Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
2. Whether reportable: Yes/No
