ARBAP/62/2022 of K M ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION HAVING ITS OFFICE Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 23 December 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND

AT NAINITAL

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI VIPIN SANGHI

ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO. 62 OF 2022

23[RD] DECEMBER, 2022

BETWEEN:

M/s K.M. Engineering & Construction And

…..Applicant.

The Court made the following:

JUDGMENT:(per Hon’ble The Chief Justice Sri Vipin Sanghi)

No reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents. Adjournment is sought by learned counsel on the ground that learned counsel on record Mr. S.S. Chauhan is not available today.

2. Considering the fact that the respondents were duly served and granted time for filing reply on 25.11.2022, which has not been filed, I am inclined to dispose of this application.

3. This application has been preferred by the applicant under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to seek appointment of the sole Arbitrator to decide the disputes between the parties, arising out of their agreement.

4. The parties had entered into an agreement/ contract relating to construction of Bansbagar to Goothi Malla- Talla Motor Road, Stage-I works, vide Contract Agreement No.20/S.E. IIIrd circle dated 08.03.2010 under P.M.G.S.Y. The said agreement contains an arbitration clause in Clause 25 which, inter alia, provides that in case disputes arose between the parties, the matter shall be referred to an Adjudicator. The Adjudicator is required to give a decision within 56 days of receipt of a notification of a dispute. Clause 25.2 provides that either party may refer the decision of the Adjudicator to Arbitration within 28 days of the Adjudicator’s written decision.

5. In the present case, the applicant claims that disputes arose between the parties under the agreement/ contract and, consequently, the applicant addressed a communication dated 15.06.2020 to the Chief Engineer, Uttarakhand Rural Roads Development Agency; the Superintending Engineer, P.M.G.S.Y. Circle, Public Works Department, and; the Executive Engineer, P.M.G.S.Y. Division, Public Works Department, raising its claims and calling upon the said respondents to release the amount of Rs.6,50,102.00/- with 18% simple interest from 30.05.2015 till realization. The applicant also claimed other amounts, and further went on to state that, in case the amounts are not paid, the said notice be treated as a notice invoking arbitration agreement. The respondents have not responded to the said notice and, consequently, this application has been preferred.

6. The respondents have not controverted the averments made in the application. Therefore, it is evident that the parties entered into the aforesaid agreement/ contract, which contains the arbitration agreement. The applicant has invoked an arbitration clause in terms of the agreement. However, no Arbitrator has been appointed in the matter.

7. Accordingly, the application is allowed. I appoint Mr. Hari Mohan Bhatia, Advocate (Mobile No.[REDACTED]), to act as the sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties, under the aforesaid Agreement/ Contract.

8. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.

(VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.)

Dated: 23[rd] December, 2022NISHANT