Himachal Pradesh High Court
___________________________________________________ vs State Of H.P. And Another on 20 June, 2016
Author: Rajiv Sharma
Bench: Rajiv Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
Arb. Case No. 39 of 2016 .
Decided on: 20.6.2016 ___________________________________________________ Nawal Kishore and sons. ...Petitioner.
Versus State of H.P. and another. ...Respondents. ____________________________________________________________ of Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge.
rt Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Suneet Goel, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Parmod Thakur, Addl. A.G. ________________________________________________________ Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral).
This petition has been filed under sections 14 and 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for terminating the mandate of the Arbitrator and for appointment of an Arbitrator.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed that the details of the work allotted to his client have wrongly been mentioned in para No.1 of the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:37:14 :::HCHP 2petition and the details may be taken from Annexure P-2. The prayer is allowed. Respondent-State allotted .
the work of construction of "C/O Link Road from Kakaroo Nallah to Shogi K.M. 0/0 to 10/920 (SH:-F.C. R/wall, B/wall, C/O Katcha Drain Road side K.M. Stone & Logo Sign Board under Bharat Nirman) of Package No. HP-06-26. Certain disputes arose between the parties. The Superintending Engineer Arbitration rt Circle, HPPWD, Solan was appointed as the sole arbitrator by the Engineer-in-Chief, HPPWD vide letter dated 13.5.2014. The Arbitrator entered into reference on 29.5.2014. The first hearing of the matter was held on 5.8.2014 and the second hearing was held on 18.11.2014. The third hearing was held on 7.7.2015.
Claim Nos.1 and 2 were taken up for discussion and the matter was adjourned to 24.9.2015. The Arbitrator without disclosing any cogent reasons adjourned the matter from 24.9.2015 to 23.12.2015. Till date the Arbitrator has only taken up two claims for adjudication. The purpose of referring the matter to the Arbitrator is speedy adjudication of the matter. The ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:37:14 :::HCHP 3 proceedings have been delayed unnecessarily by the previously appointed Arbitrator.
.
3. Accordingly, the Court is of the considered view that the Arbitrator has failed to conclude the proceedings in accordance with law and as such the appointment of Arbitrator by the Engineer-in-Chief, of HPPWD is terminated.
4. Accordingly, Mr. Anand Sharma, Advocate is appointed rt as Arbitrator and Mr. Shreik Advocate is appointed as assisting Arbitrator. The Sharda Superintending Engineer Arbitration Circle, HPPWD, Solan is directed to handover the entire record of the proceedings to the newly appointed Arbitrator within a period of one week. The Arbitrator is directed to enter into reference within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order as well as record.
The Arbitrator shall commence the proceedings from the stage already arrived at by the previous Arbitrator to avoid any delay. It shall also be open to the Arbitrator to fix his fee alongwith the fee of assisting Arbitrator. The award shall be made strictly as per the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:37:14 :::HCHP 4 provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 within a period of six months. Needless to add that the .
Arbitrator shall pass a speaking order. The Registry of this Court is directed to immediately inform Mr. Anand Sharma, Advocate and Mr. Shreik Sharda, Advocate about the passing of the order by sending a copy of this of order to them.
5. In view of this, the petition stands disposed rt of. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
No costs.
(Justice Rajiv Sharma), Judge.
20.6.2016 *awasthi* ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:37:14 :::HCHP