( 2025:HHC:1034 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Arb. Case no. 883 of 2024 Decided on: 3rd January, 2025 ____________________________________________________ M/s Emerging Dehati Producer Company Limited (EDPCL) ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others ...Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Ajay Vaidya, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Dalip K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Arsh Rattan, Deputy Advocate General for respondents no.1 and 2. Mr. Balram Sharma, DSGI with Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate for respondent no.3. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (oral) This application has been filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short “the Act’) for appointment of Arbitrator on account of a dispute between the parties. It is not disputed that Memo of Understanding dated 8.01.2024 (Annexure P-4) was executed inter-se the parties. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - Clause 11 provides for the dispute resolution and the proceedings in the arbitration are to be governed by Arbitration and Conciliation Act alongwith other statutory modifications. The said clause reads as under:- 11. Dispute Resolution 11.1 This agreement shall be constructed and legal relations between the parties hereto shall be determined and governed according to the laws of republic of India. All disputes relating to this contract shall be settled amicably by mutual discussion, falling which the same shall be settled through arbitration, as per directive of MoRD, GoI. The arbitration proceedings shall be governed by the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996 or other statutory amendments/modifications thereof for the time being in force.” 2. It is the case of the petitioner that vide letter dated 21.09.2024 (Annexure P-8), respondent no.2 initiated induction training for Board of Directors-cum-Project Officers in gross violation of the said MOU, which was subject matter of Section 9 Petition in which by order dated 01.10.2024 (Annexure P-9), it was directed that effect will not be given to the letter dated 21.09.2024 in Arbitration Case No. 799 of 2024. Thereafter on 15.10.2024 (Annexure P-10), a legal notice was served upon the Secretary, Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India, respondent - 3 - No.3 seeking the appointment of the arbitrator. Similarly on 23.10.2024, a notice was sent to respondent no.2, wherein it was brought to notice that the request had already been made for appointment for arbitrator. On 24.10.2024 (Annexure P-12), a show cause notice was issued by respondent No.2 in terms of the agreement entered into between the parties which was being terminated being void ab initio. The same was made subject matter of challenge in Arbitration Case 802 of 2024 in which order was passed on 29.10.2024 (Annexure P-13) by the learned Single Judge of this Court wherein a direction was issued not to take any coercive action against the petitioner company which is now pending before this Court. In such circumstances, the present petition has been filed for the appointment of the arbitrator. 3. Respondent No.2 in his reply has opposed the appointment of the arbitrator on the account of the fact that the applicant has not come to the Court with clean hands and is guilty of deliberate and intentional concealment of various facts. 4. The allegations have been made on account of close relations inter se the parties as such merely on account of the fact that Smt. Pallavi Patial, Block Livelihood Manager (BLM) at H.P State Rural Livelihood Mission Rural Development Department - 4 - was herself a Director and the petitioner is her husband is also one of the director of the petitioner-company. It is also admitted by respondent no. 2 that MoU was signed by the parties on 08.01.2024. Counsel for the respondents No.2 has opposed the application on account of concealment of facts when the MoU was entered into. It is further argued that specifically no legal notice for appointment of arbitrator as such was served on respondent no.2, but sent to respondent no.3. 5. Keeping in view the admitted fact that there is an agreement inter se the parties, which was partially acted upon, also since it is the case of the respondents themselves that the bills of Rs.1,02,26,544/- have been raised wherein it is the case of the petitioner that partial amount of Rs.48,30,308/- has been received from total invoice of Rs.56,16,800/-. In such circumstance, the parties themselves were agreeable that the matter has to be resolved through arbitration and there is no legal hitch for appointment of the arbitrator. The litigation which is pending before this Court in the form of Section 9 Petition will also come to an end, in which interim protection would be only till the appointment of the arbitrator. 6. Accordingly, the application is allowed and Hon’ble - 5 - Ms. Justice Sabina, former Judge of this Court R/o House no. 1842 Sector 34-D, Chandigarh is appointed as an Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties, after her disclosure in writing is obtained in terms of Section 11(8) of the Act and only after receipt thereof, her appointment, as an Arbitrator, shall come into force. 6. On her giving consent to arbitrate the dispute between the parties as an Arbitrator, Hon’ble Ms. Justice Sabina, 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. The application is disposed of accordingly. ( G.S. Sandhawalia ) Chief Justice 3rd January, 2025 (priti)