ARBAP/12/2021
2022 Latest Caselaw 1934 UK

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                AT NAINITAL

          HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI VIPIN SANGHI

                              01ST JULY, 2022

     ARBITRATION APPLICATION No. 12 OF 2021


Between:

M/s Kundan Singh Prem Singh Jamnal and another.

                                                              ...Applicants
and

State of Uttarakhand and others.
                                                            ...Respondents

Counsel for the applicants.         :   Mr. Vikas   Bahuguna,    the   learned
                                        counsel.

Counsel for the respondents.        :   Mr. B.S. Parihar, the learned Standing
                                        Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand-
                                        respondents.


JUDGMENT :

The applicants have preferred the present

Application, under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and

Conciliation Act, 1996, and seek the appointment of a

sole arbitrator.

2. The parties entered into a contract on

28.06.2014 for construction of 48 metres Span Bridge

over Kusumgad in Kilometer 03 of Kakra-Parkandi-

Kandara Motor Road. The contract was executed

between the applicant no. 1 and the Superintending

Engineer, Civil Circle, P.W.D., Rudraprayag. A copy of the agreement has been placed on record as Annexure

No. 1.

3. From the present application, it is evident that

disputes have arisen between the parties with regard to

the scope of work executed by the applicant/ contractor.

The applicant claims that the respondents have not

made payments for the work done, despite repeated

requests. The applicant invoked the arbitration clause

contained in Clause No. 31.3 of the General Conditions

of Contract on 23.10.2018, whereafter reminders were

issued on 05.12.2018 and 14.01.2021. Despite those

notices, the Arbitrator has not been appointed in terms

of Clause 31.3.

4. The respondents have filed their counter

affidavit, wherein they do not deny the execution of

contract between the parties, as also the fact that the

same contains an arbitration agreement in Clause 31.3,

as placed on record by the applicant. The respondents

have raised objections, which touch upon the merits of

the applicant's claim.

5. In my view, the disputes on merit, and the

defenses that the respondents may have to the claim of

the applicant, are not germane reasons for non-

appointment of an Arbitrator in terms of the arbitration

agreement. Since disputes have, indeed, arisen

between the parties, which are referable to the

Arbitration, the application is liable to be allowed.

6. Accordingly, I appoint Ms. Indira Ashish,

(Retd.) District Judge, R/o 34-D, Race Course, Opposite

Police Line Gate No. 1, Dehradun, as the sole Arbitrator

to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.

7. The present Arbitration Application stands

disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

________________ VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.

Dt: 01st July, 2022 Rahul