( 2025:HHC:33875 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Arb. Case No.12 of 2025 Date of Decision:- 26.09.2025 M/s Prashanti Surya Construction ....Petitioner Company Versus State of H.P. & others ....Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Abhinav Mohan Goel, Advocate. For the Respondents : Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General for the respondents-State. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral). The present petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1966 for appointment of an Arbitrator for the dispute arising between the parties out of balance work and improvement of Yol Rajiana 53 mile Road Km 0/00 to 10.55 under NABARD RIDF-XXI (SH: Improvement and widening of Road c/o R/wall, Cross drainage, M/T V & U shape drain, Parapets and Road Furniture and W Metal beam crash barrier etc. Under HPPWD Dharamshala Division by Executive Egineer, HPPWD Dharamshala Division. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. The notice as such was sent on 15.05.2023 (Annexure C-5), whereby it was averred that the work was completed in September, 2020 and there were outstanding bill amount as such. The final bill was finalized in November, 2022 amounting to Rs.7,92,65,514/- and thereafter part payment of Rs.1,86,000/- was released on 04.05.2023, and thus the three proposed Arbitrators as such have been suggested. No reply was filed by counsel for the respondents-State and only an inter- departmental communication dated 23.11.2023 (Annexure C-6) was done. Hence, the petition was filed. 3. The stand of the State as such is that the claim is time-barred as such and the cause of action had arisen during the year 2017-18 and there is no resolution of the Board of Directors. 4. The counsel for the petitioner has pointed that the petition has been filed by the sole-proprietor as such and therefore, there is no substance in the said objection as such that the reply also as such does not depict any denial as such on merits regarding the pleadings made, whereby the specific averment had been made that the last payment was made on 04.05.2023. 3 5. In such circumstances, admittedly, Clause 25 provides for appointment of an Arbitrator and therefore, the parties had agreed in principal that the matter should be resolved by way of Arbitration. 6. Keeping in view the above, the present petition is allowed and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Goel, former Judge, Shanti Kutiya Estate, Chakkar, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh (Contact No.9816200203) is appointed as an Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties. Only 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, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Goel, former Judge, 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 appended to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 4 9. Accordingly, the application is disposed off alongwith pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice 26th September, 2025 (munish thakur)