( 2025:HHC:39823 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Arb. Case No.54 of 2025 Date of Decision:- 21.11.2025 M/s Universal Training & ....Petitioner Research Institute Versus Shimla Jal Prabandhan Nigam Limited ....Respondents & others Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajiv Rai, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Tejasvi Dogra, 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 claim is based on an Award-Tender dated 20.07.2020 in respect of work i.e. LWSS Shimla Town (SH:- Monthly preparation and distribution of water bills through hand held machine in Shimla Town. 3. The requisite notice dated 16.11.2024 (Annexure P- 8) in terms of Clause 25 of the contract agreement No.161 of 2020-2021 had been issued. Resultantly, the claims were raised 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 on various accounts as such. The said notice was not responded to by the respondents leading to the filing of the present petition. 4. The petition as such has been opposed by filing the reply that there was wrong billing of the water bills of the consumers as well as inefficiency in performing its duties as per the work awarded to it and the deductions have been made on that account. The limitation issue as such was also sought to be raised that the claim was of the year 2020 which was barrred by limiation as such. 5. In the replication, it has been stated that the petitioner had completed the work in its entirety in the month of February, 2023 and therefore it cannot be said that the claim made by the petitioner is barred by limitation. 6. Keeping in view the above, prima facie case is made out as the notice was duly served on 16.11.2024, which was not responded to and the fact whether the claim is barred by limitation, the matter is required to be decided by the Arbitrator. 7. 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, therefore, the matter is liable to be as such settled by 3 way of the forum which the parties had agreed to resolve the matter by way of arbitration. 8. Resultantly, the application is allowed and Ms. Shalini Thakur, Advocate of this Court is appointed as an Arbitrator (Mobile No.8894073040) to adjudicate the dispute between the parties, 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, Ms. Shalini Thakur, Advocate shall enter into reference, and shall pass an award in accordance with law. 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 of alongwith pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. (G.S. Sandhawalia) 21st November, 2025 Chief Justice (Munish Thakur)