Yog Raj Sharma vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Another on 23 May, 2017

[Cites 2, Cited by 4]

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Yog Raj Sharma vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Another on 23 May, 2017

Bench: Sandeep Sharma

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Arb. Case No. 92 of 2016 Decided on: May 23, 2017 ________________________________________________________________ .

    Yog Raj Sharma                                                                  ...Petitioner





                                               Versus
    State of Himachal Pradesh and another                                 ...respondents

________________________________________________________________ Coram:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Sumeet Raj Sharma, Advocate.






    For the Respondents       : Mr. P.M. Negi        and Mr. M.L.
                                Chauhan,      Additional   Advocates
                                General.

________________________________________________________________ Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.

By way of instant petition filed under Sub-section (6) of Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, prayer has been made for appointment of Arbitrator, in respect of work, "C/o DRDA Building at Reckongpeo, District Kinnaur (H.P.) (SH: C/o Building Portion and Water Supply and Sanitary Installation, Agreement No. 1 of 2007-08".

2. Averments contained in the petition suggest that parties entered into an agreement, whereby it has been resolved to refer the dispute to arbitration, relating to or arising out of work, awarded vide letter No. -(2)44/2000-XEN(RD) 7 dated 5th April, 2007 (Annexure P-1), qua, "Construction DRDA Building at Reckong Peo District Kinnaur, H.P. (SH:- C/o Building Portion and water supply and Sanitary installation). Perusal of Clause 25 contained in the aforesaid agreement clearly suggests that, dispute, if any, inter se 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2017 23:59:59 :::HCHP 2

parties is required to be referred to the Arbitrator, nominated and appointed by Director, Rural Development Department, SDA Complex, HP, Shimla (Annexure P-2).

3. Respondents, by way of reply, though have admitted that there is provision of referring matter to the Arbitrator, in the event of dispute inter se parties, but, specific objection has been raised with regard to delay in raising demand to appoint Arbitrator.

Respondents have specifically stated that, as per clause 25 of the agreement, demand, if any, for appointment of Arbitrator, in the even of any claim, in writing, is required to be made within a period of ninety days of receipt of information from the Government that bills are ready for payment and in case, demand is not raised within aforesaid period, claim of the contractor shall be deemed to have been waived and absolutely barred and the Government shall be discharged and released of all liabilities under the contract in respect of these claims.

4. This Court, after having carefully perused pleadings adduced on record is of the view that there is no dispute so far as provision of arbitration clause in the agreement entered into between the parties is concerned. Similarly, there is no dispute that arbitrator, pursuant to demand, if any, made by contractor, is to be appointed by the Director, RDD.

5. Consequently, this Court, after having gone through pleadings as well as agreement, deems it fit to appoint Shri Sunil Kumar Sharma, Chief Engineer (Retired), Set No. 1, Verma Apartments, Khalini Chowk, Shimla 171002, as Arbitrator who shall decide the ::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2017 23:59:59 :::HCHP 3 dispute inter se parties strictly in accordance with provisions contained in the Arbitration & Conciliation Act. Needless to say that the learned Arbitrator before initiating process of adjudicating .

claims of the parties, shall specifically deal with objections having been raised by respondent-State with regard to delay in raising demand for appointment of Arbitrator, in terms of Clause 25 of the agreement.

6. A copy of this order shall be made available to the Arbitrator, named above, by the Registry of this Court, within a period of two weeks, enabling him to take steps for commencement of the arbitration proceedings.

7. The petition is disposed of.

(Sandeep Sharma) Judge May 23, 2017 vikrant ::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2017 23:59:59 :::HCHP

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Himachal Pradesh High Court