Himachal Pradesh High Court
Tarun Mahindroo vs H.P. Power Corporation Limited on 8 March, 2017
Author: Dharam Chand Chaudhary
Bench: Dharam Chand Chaudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
Arbitration Case No. 104 of 2016
.
Date of decision: March 8, 2017.
Tarun Mahindroo ......Petitioner.
Versus
H.P. Power Corporation Limited ......Respondent.
of
Coram
rt
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 No.
For the petitioner : Mr. Suneet Goel, Advocate.
For the respondent : Mr. Vivek Negi, Advocate.
Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. (Oral)
Petitioner is a Government Contractor. The respondent H.P. Power Corporation Limited through its General Manager, Sainj HEP, Sarabhai, District Kullu has awarded the work (Civil Work, Internal WS, SI and Electrical Installation) of construction of Bachelor accommodation at Sunder Nagar in District Mandi to the petitioner vide letter of award dated 25.7.2011 Annexure P-1 in a sum of `1,96,03,299/-. The agreement Annexure P-2 was executed between the parties. The 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? yes.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:59:32 :::HCHP 2construction work was to be executed in terms of the agreement Annexure P-2.
.
2. The complaint is that the petitioner-Contractor though deployed labour and also brought requisite machinery to the site. He even executed the work partly and prepared running account bill, payment whereof was released to him by of the respondent. The respondent allegedly failed to fulfill the promises i.e. providing hindrance free site to the petitioner as rt agreed upon. The land over which the construction was to be carried out being owned by Bhakra Beas Management Board as per own admission of the respondent, therefore, the construction work was ultimately got stopped. The petitioner as such could not execute the work on the spot and as a result whereof he suffered loss to the tune of `29,25,495/- together with interest and cost. Since the respondent failed to make the payment of the said amount to the petitioner, therefore it has resulted in dispute between the petitioner and respondent. The petitioner though did approach the respondent through its General Manager for appointment of an Arbitrator vide legal notice dated 26.6.2015 Annexure P-3, however, the respondent has failed to appoint the Arbitrator in terms of the contract agreement within the stipulated period, hence this petition.
3. Though reply to this petition has been filed, however, nothing tangible has come on record to persuade this Court to ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:59:32 :::HCHP 3 form an opinion that either there exists no dispute or the Arbitrator not required to be appointed. On the other hand, in .
view of the dispute having arisen between the parties is writ large face of the record and as the competent authority under the contract agreement has failed to exercise its jurisdiction to appoint the Arbitrator within the stipulated period, therefore, the of Arbitrator has to be appointed by this Court.
4. In the nature of the dispute involved and also that rt the job of Arbitrator is quasi judicial in nature coupled with the factum of the work in question was to be executed at Sunder Nagar in Mandi district as well as the parties also belong to that area, I appoint Shri Mrigender Singh Mandyal, District and Sessions Judge (retired) as Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute raised by the petitioner-Contractor and also counter claim, if any, preferred by the respondent-corporation.
5. Learned Arbitrator to enter upon the reference at the earliest preferably within two weeks from the date of receipt of an authenticated copy of this judgment. He shall be free to fix fee at his own, of course, on taking into consideration the provisions contained under Section 11 read with schedule V to the Act. However, there shall be a direction to the parties on both sides to pay a sum of `50,000/- in advance to Learned Arbitrator within one week after he enters upon the reference.
The remaining amount, if any, be paid to him on termination of ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:59:32 :::HCHP 4 the arbitral proceedings i.e. on or before the pronouncement of arbitral award. There shall be a direction to the Registry to .
supply an authenticated copy of this judgment to learned Arbitrator forthwith.
6. The petition is accordingly allowed and stands disposed of.
of (Dharam Chand Chaudhary), Judge.
March 8, 2017, rt (vs) ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:59:32 :::HCHP