High CourtsSingle Bench

Rajesh Thakur vs State of H.P. and Others

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh · Decided on 15 December 2010 · Citation: (2010) 12 SHI CK 0006

HON’BLE JUDGES
Surjit Singh, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 11(6)
CASE NUMBER
Arbitration Case No. 44 of 2010
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 · 347 words

Surjit Singh, J.—Heard and gone through the record.

2.

Tenders were invited for executing certain work, by Public Works Department of the State of Himachal Pradesh. Petitioner was one of the tenderers. His tender was accepted and work was assigned to him. He executed the work. He alleged that his machinery remained idle for quite some time and claimed damages to the tune of Rs. 2,15,54,000/-, on this count. Demand was made, but there was no response. He made an application to the Chief Engineer (South) for appointing an Arbitrator, in terms of Clause-25 of the Agreement, which provides for reference of disputes, arising out of the agreement, to arbitration of a person to be nominated by the Engineer-in-Chief/Chief Engineer (South).

3.

Demand for appointment was made vide communication dated 24th May, 2010, Annexure C-3. When there was no response from the Chief Engineer (South), this petition, u/s 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, was filed on 12th August, 2010.

4.

Now, the Respondents have appointed an Arbitrator, vide order dated 15th October, 2010. The Arbitrator, so appointed, is Superintending Engineer (Arbitration). Appointment of an Arbitrator, by Chief Engineer (South), after the expiry of thirty days time, prescribed in Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, is not an appointment, within the meaning of Clause-25 of the Agreement, pertaining to appointment of Arbitrator.

5.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner says that the Petitioner would have accepted the appointment of Superintending Engineer (Arbitrator), even after the expiry of the prescribed time limit of thirty days, but the said Superintending Engineer does not have the ministerial staff to assist, with the result that for the last nine months he has not given any award, though a number of cases are ripe for dictating awards.

6.

In view of the abovestated position, Shri Ajay Dhiman, Advocate, who is present in the Court and has expressed his willingness, is appointed as Arbitrator in the case. He shall give award within six months. His fee is fixed at Rs. 50,000/-, plus Rs. 5,000/- secretarial expenses.

7.

Petition stands disposed of.