( 2025:HHC:36856 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Arb. Case No.43 of 2025 Date of Decision:- 31.10.2025 Biodeal Pharmaceutial Limited ....Petitioner Versus United India Insurance Company ....Respondent Limited Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Ms. Vidushi, Advocate (through video conferencing) with Mr. Mohamed Ahamed Safee, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Ashwani Kumar Sharma, Senior Advocate with Ms. Nisha Nalot, 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 terms of such appointment of Arbitrator has been mentioned at Clause 13 of the agreement, in question, dated 01.04.2019, as per the Insurance Policy issued by the respondent-Company. The said Clause reads as under:- “13. If any dispute or difference shall arise as to the quantum to be paid under this policy (liability 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 being otherwise admitted) such difference shall independently of all other questions be referred to the decision of a sole arbitrator to be appointed in writing by the parties to or if they cannot agree upon a single arbitrator within 30 days of any party invoking arbitration, the same shall be referred to a panel of three arbitrators, comprising of two arbitrators, one to be appointed by each of the parties to the dispute/difference and the third arbitrator to be appointed by such two arbitrators and arbitration shall be conducted under and in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It is clearly agreed and understood that no difference or dispute shall be referable to arbitration as hereinbefore provided, if the Company has disputed or not accepted liability under or in respect of this policy. It is hereby expressly stipulated and declared that it shall be a condition precedent to any right of action or suit upon this policy that the award by such arbitrator/arbitrators of the amount of the loss or damage shall be first obtained.” 3. Apparently, the claim had been made to the tune of Rs.3,17,87,769/- which was assessed firstly to the tune of Rs.1,36,72,938/- and resultantly on 28.09.2023, an amount of Rs.1,34,22,616/- was paid after deduction of the Reinstatement Premium of Rs.6061/-, which would be clear from the communication dated 14.08.2024 (Annexure P-14), which was sent in response to the Notice invoking Arbitration dated 01.08.2024. A perusal of the same would go on to show that the stand of the respondent-Company was that the full & final discharge voucher has been executed for the acceptance of the same and invocation of arbitration was declined. A persual of the 3 written statement filed by the respondent would also go on to show that the same plea as such has been taken that there is no settlement of claim and the protest against settlement must be lodged immediately. 4. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a three- Judge Bench judgment of the Apex Court in SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Krish Spining (2024) SCC Online SC 1754, to contend that if the stand is that merely on the execution of a discharge voucher towards the full and final settlement between the parties for invocation of arbitration would be a mixed question of law and fact, the dispute had to be gone through the process of arbitration. The Court while acting in exercise of its power under Section 11, will only look into the existence of the arbitration agreement and would refuse arbitration only as a demurrer when the claims are ex-facie frivolous and non- arbitrable and to decline the same. The limiation aspect of three years was also subject matter of consideration before the Apex Court. 5. At this stage, counsel(s) have consented that instead of a three Member Arbitral Tribunal, the matter could be as such settled by a sole Member Arbitral Tibunal. 4 6. Needless to say that the Arbitrator will go into all the questions regarding the maintainability on all aspects including limitation. 7. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion, keeping in view the claim made and amount awarded and the fact that the parties have agreed to the arbitration, 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 Hon’ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur, former Judge, House No.188, Sector 11-A, Chandigarh (Contact No.9610478000) (e-mail Id: jnjkmahal@gmail.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 her giving consent to arbitrate the dispute between the parties as an Arbitrator, Hon’ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur, former Judge, shall enter into reference, and shall pass an award in accordance with law. 5 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 31st October, 2025 (munish thakur)