Himachal Pradesh High Court
M/S V.S. Saini vs State Of H.P. & Anr on 3 March, 2016
Author: Dharam Chand Chaudhary
Bench: Dharam Chand Chaudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
.
Arbitration Case No. 82 of 2015
Date of decision: March 3, 2016.
M/s V.S. Saini, Govt. Contractor. ......Petitioner.
Versus
State of H.P. & anr. ......... Respondent.
of
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1No.
rt
For the petitioner : Mr. Sumeet Raj Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. D.S. Nainta, Addl. AG with Mr.
Pushpinder Jaswal, Dy. AG.
Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. (Oral)
Petitioner-Contractor has filed this petition with a prayer to appoint an Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes having arisen during the course of execution of the work, namely, (SH: P/L 20 MM THICK PREMIX CARPET (IRC TYPE-B) SEAL COAT ON I) KANDWAL DAMTAL (MDR-47 ROAD KM 12/0 to 16/5000).
2. The work in question was awarded to the petitioner-
contractor for a sum of `31,70,476/-. Agreement No. 154 of 2013-14 was executed between the parties. Clause-25 of the agreement provides for a reference of all disputes to the sole arbitration of an Arbitrator 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? yes.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:51:57 :::HCHP 2appointed by Chief Engineer, HPPWD (North Zone). Disputes have .
arisen between the parties during the course of execution of the work by the Contractor. The Contractor, therefore, served the Competent Authority i.e. Chief Engineer, HPPWD (Kangra Division at Dharamshala) with notice Annexure P-2 in which the disputes, so arisen, of were referred to and a request was made to appoint the Arbitrator for adjudication thereof. Admittedly, the Competent Authority has failed to rt appoint the Arbitrator within the stipulated period i.e. 30 days from the date of receipt of the notice Annexure P-2.
3. As noticed hereinabove, the Superintending Engineer (Arbitration), HPPWD, Solan Circle, no doubt has since been appointed as Arbitrator, however, after the expiry of the stipulated period. Learned Counsel representing the petitioner has objected to the appointment of Superintending Engineer (Arbitration) as Arbitrator on the ground that firstly the said officer is not acceptable as such to the petitioner-
Contractor and secondly, that the Competent Authority under the agreement cannot appoint the Arbitrator on the expiry of period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the notice.
4. The objections raised hereinabove by the petitioner-
Contractor finds support from the judgment of Apex Court in Deep Trading Company Versus Indian Oil Corporation and others (2013) 4 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:51:57 :::HCHP 3 SCC 35. In such a situation, the Arbitrator has now to be appointed by .
this Court.
5. In the nature of the dispute involved, Mr. Deepak Kaushal, Advocate is appointed as sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties in this case. Learned Arbitrator to enter upon the of reference within a week from the date he receives an authenticated copy of this judgment to be supplied by the Registry to him. It is expected rt from the Arbitrator that he will conclude the proceedings at the earliest, preferably within six months from the date he enters upon the reference.
6. The fee payable to the Arbitrator shall be as per the schedule and the amount claimed. The fee payable to the Arbitrator shall be shared equally by the parties on both sides. Half of the fee shall be paid to the Arbitrator within a fortnight from the date he enters upon the reference and the remaining well before the pronouncement of award.
7. The petition is accordingly allowed and stands disposed of.
(Dharam Chand Chaudhary), Judge.
March 3, 2016, (vs) ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:51:57 :::HCHP