( 2025:HHC:39824 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Arb. Case No.57 of 2025 Date of Decision:- 21.11.2025 Girish Gupta ....Petitioner Versus Himachal Pradesh Housing & ....Respondents Urban Development Authority (HIMUDA) and others Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Manta, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Rohan Tomar, Advocate. 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. 2. The petition is based on the strength of the fact that the work was awarded on 05.06.2007 for construction of Partially Self Financing Scheme at Kasumpti, Chhabrogti, Shimla-9. The petitioner was a ‘A’ Class Contractor. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the date of receipt of last payment was in June, 2017 to the tune of Rs.15,41,157. Even in the reply filed by the respondents, it was mentioned that 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 the penalty as such was imposed to the tune of Rs.30,57,985/- initally by the Superintending Engineer, HIMUDA which was subsequently revoked on 21.04.2016. The final bill of Rs.7,47,957/- submitted by the Sub-Divisional Officer further to his office and Rs.8,00,000/- had been released by the Divisional Office, HIMUDA and remaining amount of Rs.7,41,954/- were kept in deposit. It is thus, apparent that the petitioner had made the last payment in the year 2017. 4. The legal notice dated 21.05.2021 (Annexure P-3) was served upon invoking the Arbitration Clause of the Agreement and pointing out the serious issues as such raised and also seeking the appointment of the Arbitrator. 5. Apparently, the respondents vide communication dated 02.08.2022 (Annexure P-4) and 13.09.2022 (Annexure P- 5) asked him to attend the office on any working day to settle the issue amicably and further avoid any litigation and no plea as such was taken regarding the issue of limitation. 6. In such circumstances, the stand now taken by the respondent would not be tenable as the matter was still considered alive by then and the respondents have entertained the petitioner before the settlement of the dispute which having 3 been done and in view of this fact, the present petition has been filed. 7. In such circumstances, this Court deems it fit to appoint an Arbitrator to resolve the dispute by way of an independent Arbitrator. Therefore, the matter is liable to be as such settled by way of the forum which the parties had agreed to resolve the matter by way of arbitration. 8. Keeping in view the above, the present petition is allowed and Ms. Shyama Dogra, former Chairperson, Permanent Lok Adalat P.U.S. Chandigarh, Naish Villa Estate, Dogra Bhawan, Ground Floor, Lower Jakhoo, Shimla, Hiimachal Pradesh (Contact No.9418696233) & (e-mail Id: shyamadogra@yahoo.com) is appointed as an Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties. Only 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. 9. On his giving consent to arbitrate the dispute between the parties as an Arbitrator, Ms. Shyama Dogra shall enter into reference, and shall pass an award in accordance with law. 4 10. 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. 11. Accordingly, the application is disposed off alongwith pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice 21st November, 2025 (Munish Thakur)