ARBAP/59/2022
2022 Latest Caselaw 3686 UK

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                  AT NAINITAL

      THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI VIPIN SANGHI


            ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO. 59 OF 2022


                        18th NOVEMBER, 2022


Between:

M/s Pipaliya Engineering and
Construction (Joint Venture)                ...... Applicant/Petitioner

and

State of Uttarakhand & others               ......         Respondents



Counsel for the applicant       :     Mr. Prabhat Bohra, learned counsel

Counsel for the respondents     :     Mr.    Mukesh     Rawat,     proxy
                                      counsel    on   behalf    of   Mr.
                                      Shailendra    Singh      Chauhan,
                                      learned counsel for respondent
                                      No. 1

                                      Ms.    Mamta    Bisht,    learned
                                      Deputy Advocate General for   the
                                      State   /  respondent    Nos.   2
                                      and 3



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.

2) The parties had entered into contract dated

27.11.2013, relating to Bansbagar to Goothi Motor Road,

Stage-II works. The Contract Agreement No. 37 / S.E.-

P.M.G.S.Y / 2013-14 was executed under the PMGSY.

3) The case of the applicant is that the stipulated

date of start was 27.11.2013, and stipulated date of

completion was 26.02.2015. However, the work was

completed in June 2017. The applicant states that the

delay was not on account of the reasons attributable to

the contractor. The applicant claims that the final bill

paid by the respondent was for Rs.4,10,94,969/-. The

applicant states that there was delay in release of the

amount of Rs.5,09,381/- due to the negligence of the

respondent. On 10.10.2017, the applicant sought

release of the aforesaid amount, apart from release of

05 per cent retention money, and additional security

under Clause 43.2 of the General Condition of Contract.

The applicant claims that the respondent has not settled

its claim and, consequently, on 13.06.2020, the

applicant invoked the Arbitration Agreement contained in

Clause 25.5 of the General Condition of Contract. Till

date, no Arbitral Tribunal has been constituted, and

consequently, the present application has been

preferred.

4) Upon issuance of notice, the respondent has

filed its counter-affidavit. The respondent does not

dispute the fact that the parties entered into the

aforesaid agreement, which contains an Arbitration

Clause in Clause 25.5 of the General Condition of

Contract. The respondent, however, disputes the points

made by the applicant.

5) In the aforesaid circumstances, I am inclined

to allow this application. Accordingly, I appoint Mr.

Balveer Prasad, Retd. District Judge (Mobile No.

9358209910), to act as a sole Arbitrator to adjudicate all

disputes between the parties arising out of the aforesaid

agreement.

6) Arbitration Application stands disposed of,

accordingly.

________________ VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.

Dt: 18th NOVEMBER, 2022 Negi