Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 1]

Himachal Pradesh High Court

M/S. Hill Construction And Engineering ... vs State Of H.P And Another on 5 April, 2018

Author: Vivek Singh Thakur

Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA       Arb. Case No. 95 of 2017 .

                 Decided on: 5.4.2018 M/s. Hill Construction and Engineering Co. ...Petitioner.

      Versus State of H.P and another ...Respondents.

Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting? 

For the petitioner:      Mr. Sumeet Raj Sharma, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr.   Shiv   Pal   Manhans,   Additional Advocate   General   with   Mr.   Raju   Ram Rahi   and   Mr.   Amit   Dhumal,   Deputy Advocate Generals for the respondents­ State.

Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. (Oral) This petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short the Act) for appointment of Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute arising   out   of   agreement   executed   between   parties   with respect to work awarded to the petitioner vide award letter ::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2018 22:58:42 :::HCHP 2 No.KNR­Irrig­Peo­EA­I­Tender­Award/2013­7680­86   dated 22.3.2013 for construction of FIS from Lambidhar to Pangi .

in Gram Panchayat Pangi, Tehsil Kalpa, District Kinnaur.

Agreement contains arbitration clause 25 for settlement of disputes by arbitration.  

2. The petition has been filed on the ground  that respondents­State is not making payment of work executed by   the   petitioner   and   the   department   has   also   failed   to provide   site   and   to   take   decision   on   the   layout   of   Nalla crossing, resulting into delay in completion of work.   It is alleged that the work has prolonged on account of breach of respondents­department   rendering   infrastructure   and labour of petitioner idle causing damages to the petitioner.

Entitlement   for   refund   of   security   amount   and   interest   @ 14% per annum on the amount withheld by the respondents­ department has also been claimed.  The petitioner has also placed   on   record   notice   dated   19.6.2017   (Annexure   P­2) served   upon   respondent­department   for   appointment   of arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties.

::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2018 22:58:42 :::HCHP 3

3. This   petition   is   contested   by   the   respondents­ department by stating in the reply that the petitioner had .

miserably   failed   to   specify   the   dispute   in   its   letter   dated 19.6.2017   and,   therefore,   the   petitioner   is   not   entitled   to seek appointment of an arbitrator.  However, in the reply, it is claimed that the petitioner­company has not deployed the labour and equipment at the site of the work resulting into abnormal delay in executing the work and further that the petitioner­company,   despite   request   of   respondents­ department,   is   not   executing   the   work   as   per   the specifications and terms of the agreement/award and now, lame excuse is being made to cover its inactions.

4. From the contents of the petition as well as from the   reply,   it   is   evident   that   there   is   dispute   between   the petitioner and the respondents­department on certain issues arising out of the agreement executed between them having the   arbitration   clause   for   resolving   the   dispute   between them   and   respondents­department   has   failed   to   appoint arbitrator  in  response  to  the notice dated 19.6.2017 served ::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2018 22:58:42 :::HCHP 4 upon the respondents­department.  

5 During   hearing   on   previous   date,   parties   were .

given time to exchange the names being suggested by them to   each   other   for   appointment   as   Arbitrator,   but   parties have not arrived at consequence.  

6. Therefore,   I   appoint   Hon'ble   Mr.   Justice   A.K. Goel,  Judge  (retired)   as  Arbitrator  with direction to enter into reference within a period of two weeks from receipt of this order and to make a reasoned speaking award in terms of   arbitration   agreement,   in   accordance   with   law,   on   the basis of material placed before him during proceedings.  He shall be entitled for fee as per Schedule of the Act.

7. Registry of this Court is directed to immediately supply   copy   of   this   order   to   Justice   A.K.Goel,   Judge (retired.) Petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

       (Vivek Singh Thakur)             Judge April 5, 2017                    (mamta ) ::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2018 22:58:42 :::HCHP