Gauhati High Court
M/S Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nigam Nirman ... vs Head Quarters on 3 February, 2026
Author: Soumitra Saikia
Bench: Soumitra Saikia
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010265572024
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Arb.P./51/2024
M/S UTTAR PRADESH RAJKIYA NIGAM NIRMAN LTD
OFFICE OF PROJECT MANAGER, DIBRUGARH UNIT 204/C, GATE NO.1,
ROAD-1, ASHOK NAGAR, RANCHI, JHARKHAND-834002
VERSUS
HEAD QUARTERS, CCE (ARMY) NO 1 DINJAN
POST- PANITOLA, DIST.- DIBRUGARH, ASSAM-786183
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S P SHARMA, K AHMED
Advocate for the Respondent : MRS. A GAYAN (C.G.C.),
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA
ORDER
03.02.2026 Heard Mr. SP Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. A Gayan, learned CGC for the respondents.
2. This is an application under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Page No.# 2/5 Conciliation Act, 1996. The petitioner was awarded with a work order by communication dated 20.08.2016 for the CA No.CCE/DIN/LIK/11 of 2016-17:
Provision of Accommodation for certain units at Likabali, Assam under CCE (Army) No.1, Dinjan. Date of handing over of the site and date of commencement of the work and completion of the work of different phases are clearly mentioned in the said communication. Thereafter, an agreement was executed by and between the petitioner and the respondent where at Clause 70 there is a clause for arbitration and in cases of disputes between the parties arbitration can be invoked after a written notice by either party to the contract for appointment of sole Arbitrator of an engineer/officer to be appointed by the authority mentioned in the tender documents. Thereafter, certain differences arose between the parties and the petitioner invoked the arbitration Clause-70 by a notice dated 31-12-2023, whereby 3 (three) names were proposed as sole arbitrator and inviting the respondents to concur on the suggestions made on any of the three names. The notice calling upon the respondents was replied to by the respondents stating that the arbitration may be resorted to only after completion of the work and at the relevant point in time, the work was not completed and therefore, the provisions of Clause-70 could not be invoked.
3. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner completes the work on 10-05-2024 and Page No.# 3/5 by notice dated 04-06-2024, the petitioner again called upon the respondents to appoint an arbitrator by invoking Clause-70 of the Arbitration and Consolidation Act, 1996 and a reference was also made to the earlier communication calling upon the respondents to concur on any of the names referred to in the first notice. The respondents, however, reply in the second notice intimating the petitioner that arbitration will be resorted to only upon receipt of confirmation from the petitioner that the claims raised are the final claims. Thereafter, the respondent authorities have proceeded to appoint an Arbitrator in terms of the Clause-70 and concurrence for the same was forwarded to the petitioner which the petitioner, however, did not respond to.
4. Under such circumstances, the petitioner is before the Court filing an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 praying for appointment of sole Arbitrator. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the amendment brought in by Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, an officer falling within the categories specified in the Seventh Schedule cannot be appointed as an arbitrator by the respondent authority, unless there is a clear waiver by the contractor. The petitioner has not consented to the proposal of the respondents after considering the fact and therefore, they are agreed that the proposal for appointment of an officer by the respondents cannot be accepted in view of the Page No.# 4/5 clear embargo under Section 12.5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
5. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and pleadings available on records have been carefully perused.
6. There is no dispute that the Arbitration Clause at Clause-70 proposes arbitration before a sole arbitrator in cases of disputes. The first notice issued by the petitioner, although before completion of the work, contained three names suggested by the petitioner which have not been concurred upon by the respondent.
7. Subsequent thereto, the work was completed on 10th of May, 2024, which is not disputed by the respondents. The second notice was issued on 04-06- 2024, again calling upon the respondents to appoint an Arbitrator. The respondents have failed to accede to the request made by the petitioner and upon the petition being filed before the Court under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and notices being issued and the respondents having failed to concur, they have lost their right to appoint their arbitrator. Consequently, the matter is before this Court for appointment of a sole arbitrator in terms of Clause-70 of the Arbitration and Consolidation Act, 1996.
8. This Court confers its powers under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Page No.# 5/5 Consolidation Act, 1996 and therefore, proposes to appoint an Arbitrator in terms of the Notification No. 29 dated 21-05-2024 of the Gauhati High Court, whereby Hon'ble Mr. Justice HN Sarma, retired Judge of the Gauhati High Court be appointed as an arbitrator and decide on the disputes arising by and between the parties in connection with the agreement dated 20.08.2016 for the CA No.CCE/DIN/LIK/11 of 2016-17: Provision of Accommodation for certain units at Likabali, Assam under CCE (Army) No.1, Dinjan. This appointment is prospective subject to furnishing of written declaration as required under Section 12 (1)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. A copy of this order be marked to Hon'ble Mr. Justice HN Sarma, retired Judge of the Gauhati High Court by the Registry of this Court. The parties are also permitted to furnish a copy of this order and the place it before Hon'ble Mr. Justice HN Sarma, retired Judge of the Gauhati High Court. Upon receipt of the written declaration from the prospective arbitrator, the appointment will be confirmed on the next date.
9. Let the matter be listed on 06.03.2026.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant