Himachal Pradesh High Court
Rakesh Kumar vs Hpseb Ltd. & Another on 25 March, 2015
Author: Dharam Chand Chaudhary
Bench: Dharam Chand Chaudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Arb. Case No. 86 of 2014.
.
Date of Decision: 25th March, 2015.
_______________________________________________________
Rakesh Kumar ...Petitioner.
Versus
HPSEB Ltd. & Another ..........Respondents.
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 No.
For the appellant: Mr. Suneet Goel, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Satyen Vaidya, Advocate.
____________________________________________________
Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. (Oral)
Heard.
2. Having gone through the contents of the petition and also the reply thereto filed on behalf of the respondents, it transpired that work namely "restoration of damaged river on the right bank of Satluj River" from RD-0.00 to 180 meters i.e. to give protection to 11/66 KV Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 17:53:04 :::HCHP -2-Switchyard, Ghanvi Power House, in District Kinnaur was awarded to the petitioner-contractor by the .
respondent-Board vide letter dated 2nd March, 2012 (Annexure C-1).
3. The petitioner-contractor and the respondent-establishment entered into an agreement and on handing over the sight to the petitioner-
contractor, he started the construction of the work so awarded. There arise certain disputes as detailed below para 7 of the petition during the execution of the work.
Since the disputes could not be resolved, therefore, the petitioner contractor taking recourse to clause 25 of the contract, served the competent authority i.e. Chief Engineer (Generation) HPSEBL, Sundernagar for appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes so arisen between the parties. Though appointment of Arbitrator was made within the stipulated period vide letter dated 17th December, 2014, Annexure R-2, ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 17:53:04 :::HCHP -3- however, not by the competent authority. Hence the petition for appointment of Arbitrator by this Court.
.
4. The disputes as detailed below para 7 of the petition have arisen during the course of execution of the work awarded to the petitioner-contractor. The same have to be resolved by way of arbitration in terms of clause 25 of the contract agreement. The Arbitrator though has been appointed vide letter Annexure R-2, however, not by the competent authority. It is, therefore, this Court to appoint the arbitrator for resolution of the dispute so arisen.
5. Keeping in view the nature of the disputes and also that the petitioner belongs to District Mandi and the office of the respondent-establishment is also at Mandi, I appoint Ms. Aruna Kapoor, District and Sessions Judge (retired), who also belongs to Mandi, as an arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties, in accordance with law. In the nature of the dispute ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 17:53:04 :::HCHP -4- involved, it is expected from learned Arbitrator to expedite the proceedings as early as possible preferably .
within six months from the date she enters upon the reference. It is left open to the arbitrator to fix her fee at her own. Registry to send an authenticated copy of this judgment to Mrs. Kapoor, at the earliest.
6. In view of the above, the petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.
March 25, 2015 (Dharam Chand Chaudhary),
(ps) Judge.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 17:53:04 :::HCHP