1 2025:HHC:14380 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Arb. Case No. 15 of 20 2 5 Decided on: 16.05.2025 Jagpal Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Ms. Srishti Verma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) Prayer has been made for appointment of an Arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 2. The dispute arises out of the agreement No.14 of 2019-20 as per the letter of award dated 29.05.2019 for the construction of PHC Building level III at Kakira District Chamba (HP) and Rain Harvesting System. 3. The case of the petitioner as set out is that there were delay and hindrances and therefore disputes had arisen 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 and work has been completed. The final bill for the work done was only prepared by the Department in July 2022 and an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- has been paid out of Rs.8,65,000/- which is verified and the balance of Rs.4,65,000/- is still due. Security has been deducted from the bills of the petitioner and payments were made in installments after repeated requests and therefore claim of Rs.26,00,000/- has been set up as per Clause No.25 of the agreement in question. The petitioner has also issued Notice dated 14.09.2023 (Annexure A-2) invoking Arbitration Clause whereby names of the Advocates as such of this Court were suggested for appointment as Arbitrator. After getting no response as such, the present petition has been filed. 4. As per the copy of the reply supplied in Court which is stated to have been submitted in the office, the 8th final bill was paid vide Vr. No.18 dated 24.02.2023 and even the withheld amount is stated to have been released on 07th August, 2023, so the issue of delay is not present as argued by the State counsel. It has been pleaded that the contractor moved the Court to gain undue benefit through arbitration process, though his final bills have already been cleared. 3 5. As noticed, the claim as such on the note of account of delay, delayed payment, security deducted and on account of loss of profit etc. 6. In such circumstances, the objection as such that the petition is not maintainable prima facie would not come in the way of this Court from appointing the Arbitrator as the parties as per the agreement had themselves agreed to resort to the said Forum for settlement of disputes inter se the parties to contract. 7. Accordingly, the application is allowed and Mr. Satish Sharma, Advocate, (Mob. No.9418065677) HIM No.10 of 2011, resident of Sunview Building, Middle Cemetery, Sanjauli, Shimla, one of the proposed Arbitrators 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. 8. On his giving consent to arbitrate the dispute between the parties as an Arbitrator, Mr. Satish Sharma, Advocate, shall enter into reference, and shall pass an award in accordance with law. 4 9. 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. May 16 , 2025 ( G.S. Sandhawalia ) (ankit) Chief Justice