Bharat - Rkc Jv vs Ministry Of Road Transport &
2024 Latest Caselaw 86 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Bharat - Rkc Jv vs Ministry Of Road Transport & on 16 February, 2024

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                AT NAINITAL


         HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MS. RITU BAHRI


           ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO. 60 OF 2023



                      16TH FEBRUARY, 2024




Bharat - RKC JV, a joint venture
of M/s Bharat Construction & M/s
Ram Kumar Contractor                       ...... Applicant/Petitioner

Versus


Ministry of Road Transport &
Highways and another                       ......       Respondents



Counsel for the applicant     :     Mr. Vikas Bahuguna,     learned
                                    counsel      through      video
                                    conferencing

Counsel for the respondents   :     Mr. V.K. Kaparuwan, learned
                                    Standing Counsel for the Union
                                    of India


The Court made the following:


JUDGMENT:

In the present case, as per the terms of

contract agreement (Annexure-2), Article 26 is the

clause for dispute resolution. Clause 26.3 of said

contract agreement deals with appointment of an

Arbitrator.

2) At the outset, counsels for the parties point

out that earlier this Court appointed Mr. Justice P.C. Pant

(Retd.) Judge Supreme Court to act as a sole arbitrator

to adjudicate all disputes, claims and counter-claims

between the parties arising out of their contract

agreement, but he expressed his inability to conduct

arbitration proceedings due to personal reasons.

Learned counsels state that in the aforesaid light, they

have no objection to appointment of an independent

Arbitrator by this Court.

3) Counsel for the respondents states that since

the amount in dispute is more than three crores, as per

clause 11.2 of the Arbitration Rules of the Society for

Affordable Redressal of Disputes, if the claim amount is

more than three crores, a tribunal shall be constituted of

odd number of Arbitrators to be nominated by the

parties.

4) Counsel for the applicant / petitioner is not

disputing the above said provision contained in the

Arbitration Rule of the Society for Affordable Redressal

of Disputes.

5) Keeping in view this fact, the Court proceed to

appoint a panel of three Arbitrators.

6) Counsel for the applicant / petitioner

proposed the name of Mr. Justice B.S. Verma, (Retd.)

Judge, High Court of Uttarakhand, to act as an Arbitrator

on its behalf, and counsel for the respondents proposed

the name of Mr. Justice V.K. Bist, (Retd.) Chief Justice,

Sikkim High Court, to act as an Arbitrator on its behalf.

This Court has no hesitation in accepting the names of

the two Arbitrators as proposed by the parties.

However, the third Arbitrator has to be appointed by

mutual understanding / consensus of both the

nominated arbitrators in order to adjudicate the disputes

which have arisen between the parties under the

aforesaid contract agreement.

7) The Arbitration Application is, accordingly,

allowed.

______________ RITU BAHRI, C.J.

Dt: 16th FEBRUARY, 2024 Negi