1 ( 2025:HHC:37067 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Arb. Case No. 863 of 2024 Decided on: 31.10.2025 Neki Ram ..Petitioner Versus Airtel Telecom Solutions Pvt. Ltd. ..Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Mukesh Sharma, Advocate, for Mr. Pranshul Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent: Ms. Leena Guleria, Advocate. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) The present petition has been filed for appointment of the Arbitrator under Section 11(6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, by the petitioner. 2. The dispute arises out of the consultancy services to be rendered by the petitioner @ Rs.22,000/-, which had been revised by the respondent-Company to Rs.25750/- w.e.f. 01.11.2020. 3. The services of the claimant were dispensed with as a consultant on 26.11.2021 and the amount thus claimed is 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2025:HHC:37067 only Rs.2,09,174/- as per the Demand Notice dated 15.6.2024. An affidavit as such was made to get the dispute settled by way of the proceedings through mediation. Unfortunately mediation proceedings have failed. 4. Keeping in view the fact that there is an arbitration agreement and the place of arbitration is Mohali/Chandigarh, resultantly, the matter is to be now decided by the arbitrator. There is an arbitration agreement between the parties and the parties have agreed that the matter should be referred to the Arbitrator, as such, this Court is of the opinion that the matter has to be resolved by way of appointing an Arbitrator. 5. In such circumstances, This Court is of the considered opinion that the forum which has been opted for by the parties should be adhered to. 6. Accordingly, Mr. Tarunjeet Singh Bhogal, Advocate of this Court, present in Court, is appointed to adjudicate the dispute between the parties. The objection as such raised by the respondent that the arbitration proceedings should be conducted at Mohali/Chandigarh is rejected keeping in view the fact that the petitioner as such had no choice as such but had agreed to the said clause and keeping in view 3 ( 2025:HHC:37067 the law laid down in Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited and another Vs Brojo Nath Ganguly and another (1986) 3 SCC 156 especially keeping in view also the amount claimed. The focus of the arbitration as such is to resolve the dispute and for such a petty amount, the petitioner should not be shuttled between Chandigarh and Shimla. It would be almost in the interest of justice alongwith the interest of the petitioner to see the fruits of litigation. The respondent is a multi-national company and, therefore, well equipped and having counsels in place all over and therefore, would not be handicapped in any manner with the arbitration proceedings to be conducted at Shimla. 7. Resultantly, the application is allowed and Mr. Tarunjeet Singh Bhogal, Advocate who will adjudicate the dispute between the parties, will give his disclosure in writing 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. Tarunjeet Singh 4 ( 2025:HHC:37067 Bhogal, Advocate shall enter into reference, and shall 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. Accordingly, the application is disposed off alongwith pending miscellaneous applications if any, application(s), if any. October 31, 2025 ( G.S. Sandhawalia ) (mamta) Chief Justice