ARBAP/16/2022
2023 Latest Caselaw 416 UK

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                                  AT NAINITAL
                 THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI VIPIN SANGHI


            ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO. 16 OF 2022

                           17TH FEBRUARY, 2023

BETWEEN:
M/s Drishti Engineers & Consultants                             .....Applicant.
And

The PMC Office, M/s Avadh Consultancy Service & another

                                                                 ....Respondents.

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Dharmendra Barthwal, learned counsel.

Counsel for the Respondent No.1             :      None.

Counsel for the Respondent No.2             :      Mr. Rajat Mittal, learned counsel.

The Court made the following:

JUDGMENT:(per Hon'ble The Chief Justice Sri Vipin Sanghi)

Despite opportunity, no reply has been filed by the

respondents. Further time is sought. I am not inclined to

grant any further time considering that the only issues which

arise for consideration in these proceedings are with regard to

the existence of the arbitration agreement; the existence of

arbitrable disputes, and; the invocation of the arbitration

agreement by the applicant.

2. The case of the applicant is that it is engaged in

construction and providing consultancy services in

infrastructure business. The applicant entered into a contract

with Mittal Machines (P.) Ltd. on 25.02.2021 for construction

of work, which includes 10 MLD WTP Unit (Inlet Chamber,

Pre-settling Tank, Flocculation Tank, Tube Settler Tank,

RSGF, Back Wash Tank, Chemical House Laboratory) for

pumping Water Supply Scheme of Matela Almora District,

Uttarakhand. The applicant claims that due to heavy rains,

the applicant was not able to carry out the said work. The

contract contains an arbitration clause in Clause 8.5.3.4 of

the General Conditions of Contract. The applicant claims that

disputes arose between the parties, and, consequently, after

issuance of termination order dated 25.02.2021, the applicant

invoked the arbitration agreement vide letter dated

31.03.2022.

3. Despite invocation of the arbitration clause, the

parties have not been able to mutually appoint the Arbitrator,

and, consequently, the present application has been

preferred.

4. In the aforesaid circumstances, I am satisfied that

an arbitration agreement exists between the parties for

resolving the disputes arising out of the aforesaid agreement;

that the disputes have arisen between the parties, and; the

parties have not been able to mutually appoint the Arbitrator

in terms of the aforesaid agreement.

5. Accordingly, the arbitration application is allowed. I

appoint Ms. R. Kiran Nath, (Retd. District Judge, Delhi),

Mobile No.9910384659, to act as the sole Arbitrator to

adjudicate the disputes between the parties, arising under the

aforesaid Agreement/ Contract.

6. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.

(VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.)

Dated: 17th February, 2023 NISHANT