Uttarakhand High Court
ARBAP/16/2025 of M/S K E C WATERLEAU J V Vs UTTARAKHAND URBAN SECTOR DEVELOPMENT AGENCY on 21 August 2026
2026:UHC:7607
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA 21st August, 2026 ARBAP NO. 16 OF 2025 M/s KEC-WATERLEU JV and others. …Applicants Versus Uttarakhand Urban Sector Development Agency (UUSDA) …Respondent Counsel for the
UKHC010030212025
2026:UHC:7607
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA
21st August, 2026
ARBAP NO. 16 OF 2025
M/s KEC-WATERLEU JV and others.
…Applicants
Versus
Uttarakhand Urban Sector Development Agency (UUSDA)
…Respondent
Counsel for the applicants
: Sri Dilip Niranjan, learned counsel
(through V.C.).
Counsel for the respondent
: None
JUDGMENT :
1. The present application, under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, has been filed by the applicant for appointment of an arbitrator for deciding the disputes and differences arising between the parties out of the joint venture agreement.
2. Present application was filed in the month of March, 2025. On 21.04.2025, none was present on behalf of the applicant and, therefore, the matter got adjourned. On 23.05.2025, the order was passed directing the applicant to take steps to serve the respondent. However, steps have not been taken so far to serve the respondent. Again on 17.10.2025, none was present on behalf of the applicant. On 31.10.2025, the matter was again adjourned on the ground that the parties were exploring for an amicable settlement.
UKHC010030212025
2026:UHC:7607
Page 1 of 2
3. Today, on the matter being taken up, Sri Dilip Niranjan, learned counsel for the applicant, again seeks adjournment on the ground that the parties are negotiating for an amicable settlement.
4. As the applicant is getting the present matter adjourned for one reason or the other and now, according to counsel for the applicant, the parties are still in the process of negotiating for an amicable settlement, therefore, no purpose is going to be served by keeping the instant matter pending. It is, accordingly, rejected at this stage, with liberty reserved in favour of the applicant to file a fresh application for appointment of an arbitrator, in case the parties fail to arrive at any amicable settlement.
5. Pending application, if any, also stands dismissed accordingly.
_____________________ MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C.J.
Dt: 21st August, 2026 Rathour
PRAVINDRA SINGH RATHOUR Digitally signed by PRAVINDRA SINGH RATHOUR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=23699ccc2fd40ad81b6fd13323779d9e3aeb1097d17db b53d481cabd25946eed, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=1F65499E931DF71CDAF92A40CC6179B8E010331 BA695239171F906FD5C45C4E8, cn=PRAVINDRA SINGH RATHOUR Date: 2026.08.24 17:32:43 +05'30'
Page 2 of 2
Loading citations and judicial treatment…