AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
4 paragraphs · 371 wordsKuldip Singh, Judge
This is a petition u/s 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ''Act'') for appointment of an Arbitrator. The case of the petitioner is that the work was awarded to the petitioner vide award letter dated 10.2.2010. There is an agreement between the parties. The Clause 25 of the agreement provides for appointment of an Arbitrator in case of dispute. The Arbitrator is to be nominated and appointed by the Chief Engineer, Central Zone, HPPWD, Mandi.
The petitioner executed some work awarded to him but on 12.5.2010 the Executive Engineer, Division No. 1, Kullu directed the petitioner to stop the work and not to resume the work till further orders. There was no direction by the Executive Engineer to disband the labour. The petitioner has claimed Rs. 9,30,000/- for cost of shuttering and ballies which became unusable, Rs. 5,47,520/- on account of anticipated profit at the rate of 15% on the balance work amounting to Rs. 36,50,127/-, Rs. 3,00,000/- on account of work executed by the petitioner, Rs. 70,000/- of security/earnest money, 18% interest per annum on withheld amount and costs of the Arbitration. It has been submitted that the petitioner had issued notice on 1.10.2011 to the Chief Engineer, HPPWD, Mandi for appointment of an Arbitrator. The Chief Engineer did not respond nor any Arbitrator has been appointed for resolving the dispute. The submission has been made for appointment of an Arbitrator.
The reply has been filed and respondents have disputed the claim. The respondents have denied the notice. The Clause 25 of the agreement has not been denied. There is thus a dispute between the parties, but as per Clause 25 of the agreement an Arbitrator has not been appointed by the Chief Engineer, HPPWD, Mandi. In these circumstances, the petition is allowed. The learned counsel for the parties have jointly stated that Mr. Naveen K. Malhotra (Retd. S.C.), Malhotra House, V.P.O. Banuri, Palampur-176061, may be appointed as an Arbitrator for resolving the dispute between the parties. Accordingly, Mr. Naveen K. Malhotra, is appointed as an Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties in accordance with the agreement and law by making reasoned award. The petition stands disposed of.