High CourtsSingle Bench

M/s R.T.A. Engineering vs Superintending Engineer 7th Circle, Public Works Department, Gopeshwar & Another

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 30 September 2022 · Citation: (2022) 09 UK CK 0158

HON’BLE JUDGES
Vipin Sanghi, CJ
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 9, 11(6)
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Arbitration Application No. 37 Of 2021
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

7 paragraphs · 321 words

Vipin Sanghi, CJ

1.

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 adjudicate the disputes, which have arisen between the parties in terms of their agreement.

2.

The case of the applicant is that the parties entered into an agreement on the General Conditions of Contract issued by the respondents-Public Works Department in relation to a work at Pokhari-Vishalkhal-Ali-Kandai Motor Road (Km. 1 to Km. 16) in District Chamoli. The applicant had participated in the e-tender process and was awarded the contract for Rs.3,80,74,273/-. The Letter of Acceptance was issued by the respondents, and the respondent no.1 entered into a contract agreement on 16.03.2016, as per the Contract Bond 14/S.E.07/2016-17. The contract contains an arbitration agreement under Clause 31 of the General Conditions of Contract dated 08.01.2014.

3.

The case of the applicant is that the applicant invoked the arbitration agreement on 02.01.2021. The respondents have, however, not cooperated in appointment of the Arbitrator. Consequently, this application has been preferred.

4.

The respondents were noticed, and they have filed the reply. The stand taken by them is that since the proceedings under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act have been preferred by the applicant, which are pending before the Court, this application cannot be allowed.

5.

The aforesaid stand of the respondents is completely misconceived. The respondents do not dispute the fact that the parties entered into an agreement, which contains arbitration clause under Clause 31. There is no dispute that the arbitration agreement has been invoked by the applicant, and no arbitral tribunal has been constituted.

6.

Accordingly, I allow the present application and appoint Shri V.K. Maheshwari, former Registrar General, High Court of Uttarakhand, R/o 252/2, Guru Nanak Road, Subhash Nagar, Dehradun, to act as the sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties, under the aforesaid Agreement.