026:HHC:20658 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Arbitration Case No. 177 of 2025 Date of decision: 29.05.2026 H.P. State Forest Development Corp. Ltd. …Petitioner Versus Pawan Kumar …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G. S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner : Ms. Kiran Dhiman, Advocate. For the Respondent: Ms. Anjali Soni Verma, Advocate. G. S. Sandhawalia , Chief Justice (Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the Act’) for appointment of an Arbitrator. 2. Dispute as such pertains to an agreement, which was executed between the parties on 15.03.2011 for collection of raisin. The work had not been completed during the agreed period and the liability on respondent was quantified to the tune of Rs. 10,27,283/- and final notice was issued on 05.09.2011 (Annexure A-5). Initially, the Managing Director had appointed the Director (South) of the Corporation as Arbitrator vide order dated 10.12.2012. Apparently on account of law being settled, the directions were issued on 25.04.2024 for appointment of an independent arbitrator. 3. In such circumstances, the present petition has been filed as per the Clause 36 of the agreement inter se the parties and they have been litigating since 2012. 2 026:HHC:20658 4. Reply has been filed by the respondent wherein it has been mentioned that limitation has come into play and reference is made to Section 29-A of the Act that maximum period for making award is 12 months, which can mutually be extended to 6 months. 5. Counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, submits that in pursuance of the communication, consent has also been taken from the respondent on 22.02.2023 (Annexure P-7), that there is no objection on the appointment of Mr. B. M. Chauhan, Arbitrator-cum-Senior Advocate, as an independent Arbitrator. The consent form has also been placed on record as such by the counsel for the petitioner. It is also a matter of record that pleadings as such were completed before the appointed Arbitrator as reply had also been filed by the respondent and thereafter rejoinder to the reply by the petitioner. 6. In such circumstances, once the matter was pending before the earlier Arbitrator and the position of law is that an independent Arbitrator is required, the present situation has arisen, therefore, either of the parties as such cannot claim on the delay which has taken place. 7. In such circumstances, as the parties had agreed to resolve the matter by way of arbitration to conclude the proceedings which had already been initiated, resultantly, the present petition is allowed and Mr. B. M. Chauhan, Arbitrator- 3 026:HHC:20658 cum-Senior Advocate is appointed as 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, of 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. B. M. Chauhan, Arbitrator-cum-Senior Advocate, shall enter into reference, and pass an award in accordance with law. 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. 10. Mr. B. M. Chauhan, Arbitrator-cum-Senior Advocate, present in the Court, is requested to conclude the proceedings at the earliest keeping in view the delay which has already occurred. 11. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of, so also pending applications, if any. (G. S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice 29th May, 2026(sanjeev)