Tek Chand vs The Executive Engineer Sewerage ... on 4 January, 2019

[Cites 2, Cited by 2]

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Tek Chand vs The Executive Engineer Sewerage ... on 4 January, 2019

Bench: Surya Kant

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

                                                         Arb. Case No. 106 of 2018




                                                                               .

                                                         Decided on:                04.01.2019





    Tek Chand                                                               ...Petitioner

                                              Versus





    The Executive Engineer Sewerage Division                                ...Respondent


    Coram

    The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant, Chief Justice.

    Whether approved for reporting?1


    For the petitioner:                  Mr. B.M. Chauhan, Advocate.



    For the respondent:                  Mr. Naresh K. Gupta, Advocate.




    Surya Kant, Chief Justice. (Oral)

In this petition under Section 11 (6) (C) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the petitioner seeks appointment of an Arbitrator to resolve the dispute having arisen between the parties out of the Agreement (Annexure C3) dated 6th May, 2016. The aforesaid Agreement was 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

::: Downloaded on - 05/01/2019 23:02:27 :::HCHP 2

entered into between the parties in terms whereof the petitioner was awarded the work of operation and .

maintenance of Sewerage Scheme, Shimla Town (New), Sub Head Deployment of Labour for Operation and Maintenance of 3 No's STP's, namely Summer Hill, Snowdon and Dhalli Zone including Sewerage Network for one year. The period

2. to of agreement was later on mutually extended.

The petitioner's case is that the respondent has illegally withheld the part payment for the period since May, 2016 to June, 2017 and for subsequent period also, for which the respondent is liable to make payment of more than ₹ 17,04,855/ or so. In addition, the petitioner has claimed profits over head charges and labour cess @ 14.6481% for the months of September, 2016 to November, 2016 besides the refund of security etc.

3. It is not in dispute that Clause 25 of the Agreement between the parties provides for settlement of dispute by arbitration. Since the respondent declined to ::: Downloaded on - 05/01/2019 23:02:27 :::HCHP 3 appoint the Arbitrator on the premise that there exists no dispute between the parties, the petitioner has approached .

this Court seeking appointment of the Arbitrator.

4. Mr. Naresh K. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent, submits that the due amount has been paid to the petitioner and in fact, it is the respondent, who is

5. to entitled to recover certain amount from the petitioner.

Be that as it may, he has fairly conceded that there is in fact a dispute between the parties which is to be adjudicated through arbitration in terms of Clause 25 of the bipartite Agreement.

6. Consequently and for the reasons aforestated, the petition is allowed and Mr. D.D. Sharma, District and Sessions Judge (Retired), who is settled at Shimla, is appointed as the sole Arbitrator. He shall make an endeavour to decide the dispute as early as possible and preferably within three months. The Arbitrator shall be ::: Downloaded on - 05/01/2019 23:02:27 :::HCHP 4 paid fee as per Schedule IV of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

7. The petition is disposed of accordingly.

(Surya Kant) Chief Justice January 04, 2019 ( rajni ) ::: Downloaded on - 05/01/2019 23:02:27 :::HCHP

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Himachal Pradesh High Court