Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2025 DAILYLAW 74271 (PNJ)

ANIL KUMAR GUPTA v. PUNJAB MANDI BOARD AND ORS

ARB/399/2025 · 2025-09-16

Jagmohan Bansal

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

ARB-399-2025 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 254 ARB-399-2025 Date of Decision: 16.09.2025 Anil Kumar Gupta …Applicant Versus Punjab Mandi Board and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present: - Mr. R.K. Girdhar, Advocate and Ms. Kashakdeep Kaur, Advocate for the applicant Mr. Rakesh Roy, Advocate for Mr. Abhilaksh Gaind, Advocate the respondents *** JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral) 1. Through instant application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘1996 Act’), the applicant is seeking appointment of an Arbitrator. 2. Pursuant to tender, the applicant was allotted work by the respondent vide allotment letter dated 09.03.2019. A dispute erupted between the parties. There is an arbitration clause in General Conditions of Contract. The applicant served notice upon the respondent seeking resolution of dispute through Arbitral Tribunal but to no avail. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that work on the part of the applicant never commenced. The respondent issued allotment letter dated 09.03.2019 which was followed by communication dated 12.10.2023. The applicant did not even furnish bank guarantee and signed agreement, thus, the matter should not be referred to Arbitrator. MOHIT KUMAR 2025.09.16 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. ARB-399-2025 -2- 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that allotment letter was issued and General Conditions of Contract formed part of the allotment letter. The respondent did not provide site, however, even after four years, asked to complete the work at old rates. The applicant had suffered losses and the matter needs to be adjudicated by Arbitral Tribunal. 5. Conditions to invoke power conferred by Section 11(6) of 1996 Act stand satisfied, thus, I hereby appoint a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties. 6. Mr. Sachin Sharma, Former Additional District & Sessions Judge, residing at R1, E 316, DLF Hyde Park, New Chandigarh, District S.A.S Nagar, Mohali, Mobile No.8054555090 is hereby appointed as a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties, subject to compliance of statutory requirements. The learned Arbitrator is requested to comply with mandate of Section 12 of 1996 Act before proceeding further. 7. The parties at the first instance will appear before the Arbitrator on 30.09.2025 at 10:00 AM and thereafter, as directed by learned Arbitrator. 8. The Arbitrator shall be paid fee in accordance with the Fourth Schedule of the 1996 Act, as amended. 9. The Arbitrator is requested to complete the proceedings as per time limit specified under Section 29-A of the 1996 Act. 10. Needless to mention, parties would be at liberty to raise all the claims/defences/counter claims/pleas before the Arbitrator. Any observation made hereinabove will not be binding on the learned Arbitrator. MOHIT KUMAR 2025.09.16 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. ARB-399-2025 -3- 11. A request letter along with copy of this order be sent to Mr. Sachin Sharma. (JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE 16.09.2025 Mohit Kumar Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MOHIT KUMAR 2025.09.16 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.