1 2025:HHC:31477 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Arb.Case No. 935 of 2023 Date of decision: 12.09.2025 __________________________________________________________ M/s S.B. Trading Company …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & another …Respondent ____________________________________________________________ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Ms. Ritu Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. G.S. S a ndhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) Learned counsel for the petitioner does not press the petition for appointment of Arbitrator in view of the stand taken by the State that the Arbitration Clause 25 stood deleted and was not a part of the contract agreement. The original has been produced today in pursuance of the order passed earlier. 2. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that she does not wish to press the petition for appointment of the Arbitrator and she be 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 relegated to her remedy before the Civil Court in view of the fact that the agreement itself provides that the party will be free to approach the Civil Court. 3. Needless to say that it is open to the petitioner to file an appropriate application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay spent in prosecuting the present proceedings. 4. Accordingly, the present petition stands disposed of, as not pressed. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice September 12, 2025 (hemlata)