Uttarakhand High Court
ARBAP/43/2022 on 14 October, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
SRI JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.
14th OCTOBER, 2022
ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO. 43 OF 2022
Between:
M/s Ilam Chand Contractor ......Applicant
and
State of Uttarakhand and others. ....Respondents
ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO. 44 OF 2022 (2)
Between:
M/s Ilam Chand Contractor ......Applicant
and
State of Uttarakhand and others. ....Respondents
ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO. 45 OF 2022 (3)
Between:
M/s Chandra Associates ......Applicant
and
State of Uttarakhand and others. ....Respondents
ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO. 46 OF 2022 (4)
Between:
M/s Chandra Associates ......Applicant
and
State of Uttarakhand and others. ....Respondents
ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO. 47 OF 2022 (5)
Between:
M/s Chandra Associates ......Applicant
and
State of Uttarakhand and others. ....Respondents
ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO. 48 OF 2022 (6)
Between:
M/s Ilam Chand Contractor ......Applicant
and
State of Uttarakhand and others. ....Respondents
ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO. 49 OF 2022 (7)
Between:
M/s Chandra Associates ......Applicant
and
State of Uttarakhand and others. ....Respondents
ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO. 51 OF 2022 (8)
Between:
M/s Ilam Chand Contractor ......Applicant
and
State of Uttarakhand and others. ....Respondents
&
ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO. 52 OF 2022 (9)
Between:
M/s Ilam Chand Contractor ......Applicant
and
State of Uttarakhand and others. ....Respondents
Counsel for the applicants : Mr. Birendra Singh Adhikari.
Counsel for the respondents : Mr. B.S. Parihar, learned Standing
Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.
Upon hearing the learned Counsel, the Court made the
following
COMMON JUDGMENT:
The applicants have preferred these Applications
under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996 for appointment of a Sole Arbitrator.
2. In all these cases, the applicants have entered
into separate identical Agreements with the respondent for
the purpose of "laying of HDPE pipeline". The Agreements
contain the dispute resolution mechanism, which
contemplates settlement of disputes between the parties
through arbitration as a final resort - as contained in Clause
34 of the respective Agreements.
3. The applicants claim that the respondents delayed
the payments under the contracts, and their claims are
essentially for interest on such delayed payments.
4. The applicants invoked the Arbitration Agreements
in each of these case on various dates. The notices for
invocation of Arbitration in each of these cases have been
placed on record. Despite invocation of Arbitration, the
Arbitral Tribunals have not been constituted, and
consequently, these Applications have been preferred.
5. In all these Applications, counter-affidavits have
been filed by the respondents. The respondents do not
dispute the fact that the parties had entered into the
contracts on which these applications are premised, which
contain the Arbitration Clause, as aforesaid. It is stated that
under Clause 9 of the Agreements, no interest or damages
are payable by the Government in respect of any money
which may become due owing to any dispute, difference or
misunderstanding between the Engineer-in-charge on the
one hand, and the Contractor on the other hand or with
respect to any delay on the part of the Engineer-in-making
periodical or final payment or in any other respect
whatsoever.
6. As to whether or not the applicants are entitled to
the amounts claimed under the contracts is an issue, which
squarely falls for consideration of the Arbitral Tribunal and is
not for me, while dealing with these Applications, to
interpret terms of the respective contracts.
7. Since there is no dispute regarding existence of
the Agreements, and the Arbitration Clauses, as also the
invocation of Arbitration by the applicants, I am inclined to
allow these Applications.
8. The claims made by the applicants in each of
these cases are of rather small amounts. Considering the
same, learned counsels are agreeable for appointment of a
practicing Advocate of this Court as a Sole Arbitrator.
7. Accordingly, I appoint Ms. Prabha Naithani,
Advocate, as a sole Arbitrator in all these case.
8. All the Applications stand disposed of accordingly.
________________
VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.
Dt: 14th October, 2022
Rathour
