( 2025:HHC:18007-DB ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Arb. Case No.884 of 2024 Decided on: 6th June, 2025 __________________________________________________ Om Prakash Surinder Mohan ....Petitioner Versus H.P. State Agricultural Marketing Board and another ...Respondents. ___________________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Suneet Goel, Senior Advocate with Mr.Vishwas Kaushal, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. V.S. Rathore and Mr. Rohit Thakur, Advocates. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) This petition has been filed for appointment of Arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short “the Act’). 2. The work awarded to the petitioner was for up gradation and strengthening of existing market yard at Shart, District Kullu, H.P., vide letter of award dated 04.05.2020 for 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - an amount of Rs.4,04,70,899/- . 3. It is the case of the petitioner that for the reasons attributable to respondent No.2, the work got delayed and therefore dispute as such has arisen. The necessary notice invoking the arbitration proceedings was issued on 19.09.2024 keeping in view the clause 24.4 of General Conditions of Contract. The claim thus for price variation is stated to be Rs.71,22,901/- and claim for prolongation is stated to Rs.26,98,059/- and resultantly three persons’ were proposed for appointment as sole arbitrator. 4. The said request as such was refuted by the respondents, vide communication dated 19.10.2024 on the ground that the delay was attributable to the contractor as evidenced by multiple notices that were issued to expedite the work within the agreed timeline. The Defects Liability Period has already elapsed and the security deposit has been released; and the contract has been closed; and the claims are stated to be falling outside the scope of the contractual provisions; and thus the request for price escalation and any other claims was rejected. 5. The stand in the written-statement is also to the - 3 - same terms as such. 6. It is thus apparent that the dispute is arising out of the contract and there is an agreement to appoint the arbitrator and the parties are agreed to such a mode. In such circumstances, the appointment of the arbitrator to facilitate the resolution of the dispute inter se the parties as provided and agreed upon exists. Resultantly, Mr. Suresh Kumar Gunju (Chief Engineer Rtd.HPPWD) Verma Apartments, Khalini, Shimla, H.P 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. 7. On his giving consent to arbitrate the dispute between the parties as an Arbitrator, Mr. Suresh Kumar Gunju, shall enter into reference, and shall pass an award in accordance with law. 8. 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 - 4 - appended to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 9. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of alongwith pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. ( G.S. Sandhawalia ) Chief Justice 6th June, 2025 (priti)