High CourtsSingle Bench

M/s Jaibeer Singh-Birendra Singh And Sons vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 6 March 2020 · Citation: (2020) 03 UK CK 0029

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 11, 11(6)(A), 11(8)
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Mcc Restoration Aplication No. 1639 Of 2018, Clma Delay Condonation Application No. 19692 Of 2018 In Arbitration Application No. 4 Of 2016
Ask AI about this case

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

22 paragraphs · 399 words

Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ

1.

The Application, seeking condonation of delay in filing the Restoration Application, is not opposed by Sri J.C. Pandey, learned Brief Holder for the

State Government. The Application, seeking condonation of delay, is therefore ordered and the delay is condoned. The Restoration Application is

ordered, and the Arbitration Application is restored to file.

2.

This application is filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the ‘Act’) seeking appointment of an

arbitrator in terms of the arbitration agreement entered into between the parties.

3.

The respondents have, in their counter-affidavit filed by them, admitted the existence of an arbitration agreement.

4.

In view of Section 11(6-A) of the Act, the only question which this Court is required to examine, on its jurisdiction being invoked under Section 11

of the 1996 Act, is whether or not there is an arbitration agreement between the parties.

5.

As the respondents admit the existence of an arbitration agreement, we see no reason not to grant the relief sought for in the application seeking

appointment of an Arbitrator.

6.

Both Sri Vinay Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri J.C. Pandey, learned Brief Holder for the State Government, agree that, in an

earlier dispute between the very same parties, this Court had, in its order in Arbitration Application No. 5 of 2016 dated 05.04.2019, appointed Sri J.K.

Pant, Retd. Chief Engineer, P.W.D., resident of 172, South Vanasthali, Mandir Lane, Ballupur, Dehradun as an Arbitrator.

7.

As learned counsel on either side state that the very same Arbitrator be appointed to resolve the disputes in the present case also, I consider it

appropriate to appoint Sri J.K. Pant, Retd. Chief Engineer, P.W.D., resident of 172, South Vanasthali, Mandir Lane, Ballupur, Dehradun as an

Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties.

8.

The learned Arbitrator shall, in terms of Section 11(8) of the 1996 Act, furnish his disclosure in writing to this Court within 15 days from the date of

receipt of a certified copy of this order. He shall, thereafter, fix his remuneration, and charges towards other expenses, in consultation with the parties

to the dispute. He shall endeavour to complete the arbitral proceedings, and to pass an award with utmost expedition, preferably within six months

from the date on which he enters upon a reference.

9 . The Arbitration Application stands disposed of accordingly.