( 2025:HHC:43978 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Arb. Case No.146 of 2025 Date of Decision:- 12.12.2025 Virender Thakur ....Petitioner Versus Dr. Y.S. Parmar University & another ....Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Suneet Goel, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vivek Negi, Advocate. For the Respondents : Ms. Vandana Misra, 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 appointment of an Arbitrator. 2. The proceedings were initiated by serving the notice dated 17.02.2025 (Annexure P-3) in terms of Clause 25 of the Agreement which was for the purpose of Construction of PG Block (Only Ground Floor) at College of Horticulture and Forestry Neri-Hamirpur (SH: Building portion). 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 3. The full and final payment of Rs.44,66,976/- as such was made to the petitioner on 05.09.2024, as per the claim as such on account of amount of settlement of various issues at excess quantity of steel or aluminium prices. The claim was for prices in relation to prolonging of the work beyond seventeen months and also for prolongation as per “Hudson’s formula” for five months apart from claim enhanced rate of GST rates. The prayer for appointment of an Arbitrator has been sought. 4. In the reply filed by the respondents, the respondents as such raised the issue of limitation to the extent that the claim has been made beyond five months as per Clause 25 of the Agreement. Therefore, the claim was deemed to have been waived and barred. Similar response has been put-forward in the reply that the work was to be completed by 15.04.2023 but it was completed only on 31.12.2023. The Award was of Rs.1,95,09,385/- and the work had to be completed within seventeen months. The demand for arbitration has now been raised after more than one year from the date of completion of the work and after five months of release of final payment and was barrred by limitation under the contract and is liable to outright rejection. 3 5. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion, keeping in view the fact that the parties have agreed to resolve the dispute by way of an independent Arbitrator and all the issues can be redressed by him, 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. 6. Keeping in view the above, the present petition is allowed and Mr. Satish Sagar, Chief Engineer (Emeritus), HPPWD, #Sagar Cottage, Village Phayal, P.O. Dhari, Tehsil & District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh 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, Mr. Satish Sagar, Chief Engineer (Emeritus) 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 4 fee as per stipulation contained in 4th Schedule appended to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 9. Accordingly, the application is disposed of alongwith pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice 12th December, 2025 (Munish Thakur)