Uttarakhand High Court
ARBAP/14/2022 on 1 July, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI VIPIN SANGHI
ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO. 14 OF 2022
1st July, 2022
Between:
M/s Piyush Infratech Pvt. Ltd. ...... Applicant/Petitioner
and
Uttarakhand Jal Vidhut Nigam
Limited and another ...... Respondents
Counsel for the applicant : Mr. Prateek Tripathi, learned
counsel
Counsel for the respondents : Mr. Vinay Kumar, learned
counsel for respondent No. 1
Mr. B.S. Parihar, learned
Standing Counsel for the State /
respondent No. 2
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT:
The applicant has preferred the present
application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act to seek appointment of an Arbitrator to
adjudicate the disputes between the parties arisen out of
agreement no. 06/DGM (CM-BV) Maneri/13-14 dated
25.02.2014.
2) The applicant was awarded the said contract in
response to the tender floated by the respondent No. 1
for construction of protection wall around reservoir rim
of Joshiyara Barrage of Maneri Bhali Stage- II, HEP at
Uttarkashi.
3) It is the case of the applicant that the disputes
have arisen between the parties in relation to the
performance of the work under the contract. The
contract between the parties contains an arbitration
agreement in Clause 55, according to which, all question
of disputes relating to the meaning of the specification
design, drawing and instructions as to the quality of
workmanship or materials used on the work or as to any
other question claim, right, matter or thing, whatsoever
in any way arising out of or relating to the contract,
designs, drawings, specifications, estimates,
instructions, orders or the condition or otherwise
concerning the work, or the execution or failure to
execute the same, shall be adjudicated in accordance
with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation
Act. The agreement, inter alia, provides that for claims
upto rupees ten crores, the case shall be referred to sole
Arbitrator to be appointed by the Principal Secretary /
Secretary (Energy) GoU. However, where claims exceed
rupees ten crores, a three member Arbitral penal shall
be constituted for arbitration, one to be nominated by
the contractor, the second to be nominated by UJVNL,
and the third by mutual understanding / consensus of
both the nominated arbitrator.
4) The admitted position is that despite
invocation of arbitration on 09.10.2020 by the applicant,
the respondents did not nominate an Arbitrator. Even
the applicant did not nominate one Arbitrator in terms of
the aforesaid agreement. Since the matter has not
proceeded, the applicant has now preferred this
application.
5) Learned counsels for the respondents do not
dispute the factum of the applicant being awarded the
contract in question, as also the factum of the arbitration
agreement contained in the General Conditions of
Contract. It is not disputed that disputes have arisen
between the parties which are referable to Arbitrator. It
is, however, pointed out by learned counsel for the
respondents that since the claims of applicant are in
excess of rupees ten crores, under the arbitration
agreement a three member Arbitral Tribunal is required
to be constituted. Since the parties did not act in terms
of the arbitration agreement by nominating one
arbitrator each, I am inclined to appoint a sole Arbitrator
to adjudicate the dispute between the parties.
6) Accordingly, the Arbitration Application is
allowed. I appoint Mr. Justice B.S. Verma, (Retd.)
Judge, Uttarakhand High Court, as the sole Arbitrator to
adjudicate the disputes which have arisen between the
parties under the aforesaid agreement.
________________
VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.
Dt: 1st July, 2022
Negi
