Uttarakhand High Court
ARBAP/24/2024 on 23 May, 2025
2025:UHC:4395
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
SRI JUSTICE G. NARENDAR, C.J.
23RD MAY, 2025
ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 24 OF 2024
Between:
M/s Mago Construction Pvt. Ltd. ................Applicant
and
Union of India and others. .....Respondents
Counsel for the applicant : Mr. Modassir H. Khan, learned
counsel.
Counsel for the respondents : Mr. Rajesh Sharma, learned Standing
Counsel for the Union of India.
Upon hearing the learned Counsel, the Court
made the following
JUDGMENT :
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and
learned Standing Counsel for the Union of India /
respondents.
2. The applicant, an 'SS Class' Contractor with
Military Engineering Services, and the applicant was
declared as successful bidder and was awarded certain
civil work by way of letter dated 08.01.2015.
Thereafter, the work order came to be issued to the
applicant on 27.01.2015 and initial date of completion
of the work was 26.07.2017. Later, the works were
completed as on 31.07.2019 pursuant to extensions
given by the respondents.
2025:UHC:4395
3. Learned counsel for the respondents would
not dispute the extensions granted by him for
completion of the work. The work was completed on
31.07.2019 and the work completion was intimated by
letter dated 06.08.2019. The applicant requested the
opposite parties for deviation orders by letter dated
27.01.2021, and the final bill was submitted with the
respondents on 25.12.2020.
4. It is fairly admitted by the respondents'
counsel that the final bill has neither been accepted,
nor has it been rejected. By notice dated 21.01.2023,
the applicant invoked Condition-70 of the GCC and
sought for reference of disputes for determination by
arbitration. Despite the same, the respondents have
failed to appoint an arbitrator.
5. In the above background and facts, the
present Application has been preferred. The
Application is resisted by the respondents' counsel on
the ground that the same is belated and barred by
limitation.
6. Admittedly, the issue of limitation is a mixed
question of facts and law. The dates, narrated above,
clearly indicate that there is no rejection of the final bill
and in the absence of the rejection of the final bill, the
2025:UHC:4395
question that arises is whether limitation starts
running? That apart, the notice invoking arbitration
clause has also not been denied or repudiated.
Disputes having arisen and Condition No. 70 of the GCC
for providing for settlement of disputes by way of
arbitration, the applicant has made out a case for grant
of relief under sub-section (6) of Section 11 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
7. In that view of the matter, the instant Application
is allowed. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Raghvendra Singh
Chauhan (Retd), former Chief Justice of this High
Court, is appointed to officiate as an Arbitrator to
adjudicate the disputes that have arisen between the
parties on merits, in accordance with the Act.
8. Let a copy of this order be communicated to
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Raghvendra Singh Chauhan (Retd),
former Chief Justice of this High Court.
9. The Arbitrator shall, in terms of Section 11(8)
of the Act, furnish his disclosure in writing to the Court
within 15 days from the date of receipt of a certified
copy of this order. The Arbitrator shall, in consultation
with the parties, fix the remuneration and other
chargeable fees. The Arbitrator shall endeavour to hear
2025:UHC:4395
and pass an Award within the time provided under the
statute.
10. There shall be no order as to costs.
11. In sequel thereto, all pending Applications
stand disposed of.
________________
G. NARENDAR, C.J.
Dt: 23rd May, 2025
Rathour
PRAVIND Digitally signed by PRAVINDRA SINGH
RATHOUR
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
RA SINGH 2.5.4.20=23699ccc2fd40ad81b6fd13323779d
9e3aeb1097d17dbb53d481cabd25946eed,
postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=1F65499E931DF71CDAF92A40
RATHOUR
CC6179B8E010331BA695239171F906FD5C45
C4E8, cn=PRAVINDRA SINGH RATHOUR
Date: 2025.05.30 11:50:25 +05'30'
