Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 862 UK
Judgement Date : 3 May, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MS. RITU BAHRI
ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO. 10 OF 2024
3RD MAY, 2024
Pradeep Thapa ...... Applicant/Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & another ...... Respondents
Counsel for the applicant : Mr. Prabhat Bohra, learned
counsel
Counsel for the respondents : Ms. Rajni Supyal Latwal, learned
Brief Holder for the State
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT:
Counsel for the State is not disputing clause-
19 of the contract at page 30 of the paper book. A
perusal of this clause shows that when a difference arose
between Executive Engineer and the contractor, it will be
first referred to the Superintending Engineer, and if the
contractor does not accept that decision within 14 days,
he will give a notice in writing. The dispute shall be
referred through any arbitrator agreed upon by both the
parties.
2) Counsel for the petitioner refers to a letter
dated 17.11.2023, at page 26 of the paper book, and
other letters dated 26.09.2023 and 29.01.2024 (at
pages 24 and 27, respectively, of the paper book) which
he had sent to the Superintending Engineer, but no
response has been received.
3) Since no response was given by the
Superintending Engineer, this court proceeds to appoint
an independent arbitrator. Let the seat of arbitration be
at Nainital.
4) Accordingly, I appoint Mr. Justice J.C.S.
Rawat, (Retd.) Judge, High Court of Uttarakhand, to act
as an Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes which have
arisen between the parties under the aforesaid contract
agreement.
5) The Arbitration Application is, accordingly,
allowed.
______________ RITU BAHRI, C.J.
Dt: 3RD MAY, 2024 Negi
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!