( 2025:HHC:12243 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Arb. Case no. 800 of 2024 Decided on: 2nd May, 2025 ____________________________________________________ Sh. Anil Mahajan ....Petitioner Versus The Director of Agriculture and another ...Respondents ________________________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Kritika Sharma, Advocate for Mr.Sumeet Raj Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) This application has been filed under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short “the Act’) for appointment of Arbitrator, on account of a dispute between the parties arising out of the agreement in respect of work “Construction of Combined Agriculture Building i.e. E-Kissan Bhawan/ Internet Kiosks Additional Office with residential building at Rajpura Tehsil & District Chamba (H.P)”. 2. The above work was awarded on 12.07.2022 for an 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - amount of Rs.3,17,98,644/-. The arbitration clause is provided under clause 25 of the agreement inter se the parties (Annexure P- 2). 3. The case of the petitioner as such set forth in the demand notice dated 24.07.2024 (Annexure P-3) is that the issues like refund of enhanced GST from 12% to 18% as well as claim for escalation, which have been submitted, have neither been resolved, nor the color scheme and cupboard design were not provided in time and therefore statement of claims as such for payment of unmeasured works etc. and payment of release of FDR for security deposit alongwith interest is to be made which is due from the respondent. 4. The stand of the respondent is that the petitioner has failed to complete the work within 24 months and the work done as such is not as per the prescribed standards. The petitioner is stated to have completed the work of the building to the extent of 91% and for the work done payment has been released through running bills detailed in the reply, which comes to the tune of Rs. 2,90,67,798/- . 5. Keeping in view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the matter can only be resolved by appointment of an - 3 - Arbitrator. Accordingly, the application is allowed and Mr. B.L Soni, District and Sessions Judge (Retd.) is appointed as an Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties, after his disclosure in writing is obtained in terms of Section 11(8) of the Act and only after receipt thereof, his appointment, as an Arbitrator, shall come into force. 6. On his giving consent to arbitrate the dispute between the parties as an Arbitrator, Mr. B.L Soni, District and Sessions Judge (Retd.) shall enter into reference, and shall pass an award in accordance with law. 7. Copy of this order be furnished to the learned counsel for the parties and also be furnished to the learned Arbitrator. The learned Arbitrator so appointed shall be entitled to fee as per stipulation contained in 4th Schedule appended to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. ( G.S. Sandhawalia ) Chief Justice 2nd May, 2025 (priti)