AO/63/2021
2021 Latest Caselaw 1276 UK

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                  AT NAINITAL

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN
                             AND
         THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA



             APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 63 OF 2021


                          1ST APRIL, 2021

 Between:

 Triveny Consultants, a proprietorship firm, through its
 Proprietor Shri Kuldeep Mehta.
                                             ...Appellant

 and


 State of Uttarakhand and another.                     ...Respondents


 Counsel       for      the : Mr. Shobhit        Saharia,   learned
 appellant                    counsel.

 Counsel for respondent : Mr. C.S. Rawat, learned Chief
 Nos. 1 & 2.              Standing Counsel with Mr. B.S.
                          Parihari,  learned    Standing
                          Counsel.




 The Court made the following:

 JUDGMENT : (per Hon'ble The Chief Justice Sri Raghvendra Singh Chauhan)




         The appellant has challenged the legality of the

 order dated 12.03.2021, passed by the learned Additional

 District Judge/Commercial Court, Dehradun, whereby the

 learned Commercial Court has dismissed the application

 filed by the appellant, in an application filed under Section
                               2


9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short,

"the Arbitration Act").



2.    Since a very limited prayer has been made before

this Court, therefore, it is not necessary to narrate all the

facts of the case. It is sufficient to state that the

Superintendent Engineer, Irrigation Circle, Haridwar had

invited bids for construction of Dhanauri-SIDCUL, link road

on the right bank of Upper Ganga Canal in District

Haridwar. Since the appellant's bid was found to be

lowest, therefore, vide order dated 19.12.2019, the work

order was granted to the appellant. According to the work

order, the work had to be completed by 20.04.2020.

However, due to certain factors, the said assigned work

could not be completed within the stipulated period of

time. Therefore, by order dated 14.07.2020, the work

order was cancelled by the respondents. Subsequently,

the appellant has sought for extension of time for

completing the work order. It was granted for a short

period of 36 days. Since the appellant was concerned that

the work carried out by him should be measured, and his

running bills should be cleared by the department, and no

third party right should be created, the appellant filed an

application under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act. In the

said application, the appellant filed another application.
                                3


However, by the impugned order the said application has

been dismissed. Hence, the present appeal before this

Court.



3.       Mr.   Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel for the

appellant, submits that despite the fact that the appellant

was directed by the Department to be present on

15.02.2021 for measuring the work carried out by the

appellant, no one from the Department was present.

Therefore, the work carried out by the appellant is yet to

be measured. Moreover, the appellant's running bills are

still pending with the Department. Therefore, he prays

that the Department should be directed to hold a joint

inspection of the work carried out by the appellant.

Moreover, the department should be directed to clear all

the bills pending with them.



4.       The   learned   counsel   for   respondent   No.2-

Department has no objection if a joint inspection were to

be carried out on a given date.



5.       Therefore, the appellant and the Chief Engineer,

Irrigation Department are directed to remain present at

the site on 08.04.2021 at 10:00 a.m. The Chief Engineer

is further directed to carry out the complete inspection of
                               4


the work carried out by the appellant in the presence of

the appellant. The Chief Engineer is further directed to

ensure that the running bills of the appellant are cleared

by the Department within a period of one month from the

date of the inspection. Moreover, it is hereby clarified that

merely because the inspection of the work carried out by

the appellant is completed by the Department, and merely

because the running bills are cleared by the Department, it

would not pre-empt the appellant from initiating arbitral

proceedings against the Department.



6.      With these directions and observations, this appeal

stands disposed of accordingly.




7.    Let a certified copy of this order be issued to the

learned counsel for the appellant today itself as per Rules.




                      _____________________________
                      RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN, C.J.



                                  ___________________
                                  ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.

Dt: 1st April, 2021 Mamta/Neha