2025:UHC:6007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL SRI JUSTICE G. NARENDAR, C.J. 10TH JULY, 2025 ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 28 OF 2024 Between: Saraswati Dynamics Pvt. Ltd. …………….Applicant and Opto Electronics Factory ..…Respondent Counsel for the applicant : Mr. Aditya Pratap Singh, learned counsel. Counsel for the respondent : None. Upon hearing the learned Counsel, the Court made the following JUDGMENT : The matter was listed yesterday and is re- listed today. There is no representation on behalf of the respondent. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the case has a history; that earlier an Arbitrator came to be appointed and as the Arbitrator, on his own volition, changed the seat of arbitration, the Arbitrator was substituted under provisions of Section 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and; that the subsequent Arbitrator passed an award and the said award was challenged under Section 34 of the Act. 2025:UHC:6007 2 3. The Commercial Court was pleased to set aside the order. In this background, the present Application is made. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would place reliance on the provisions of Section 43(4) of the Act to contend that the Arbitrator requires to be appointed. He would further take this Court through the legal notice issued by the applicant calling for an appointment of an Arbitrator. The notice is dated 10.04.2024. 5. In reply to the Notice dated 10.04.2024, the respondent has effected a reply on 09.05.2024 and has reiterated their consent for arbitration, except to the extent that the Arbitrator shall be appointed by the respondent and in fact, has named Smt. Seema Kamboj, Deputy General Manager, Ordnance Factory, Chandigarh. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the law, in this regard, is no more res integra and; that the Hon’ble Apex Court has settled the issue in the case of Perkins Eastman Architects DPC vs. HSCC (India) Limited reported in (2020) 20 SCC 760. 2025:UHC:6007 3 7. The Hon’ble Apex Court, while deciding the issue of named arbitrators, has been pleased to hold that the person, who has interest in the result or outcome of the arbitration proceedings, does not have the power to make appointment of a sole arbitrator. 8. In the instant case, the respondent, definitely, has interest in the result and outcome of the arbitration proceedings and that apart, the named arbitrator being an employee under the same organization, the same is clearly hit by the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Perkins Eastman Architects DPC (supra). 9. The willingness of the respondent to have the dispute resolved by arbitration is also forthcoming in the reply given by him to the Notice dated 10.04.2024. 10. In that view of the matter, the same can be construed as a consent for the dispute resolution by arbitration and in the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Perkins Eastman Architects DPC (supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that the Application requires to be allowed and is, accordingly, allowed. 10. This Court, hereby, appoints Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Bist, Retired Chief Justice, High Court of 2025:UHC:6007 4 Sikkim to officiate as an Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes that have arisen between the parties on merits, in accordance with the Act. 11. Let a copy of this order be communicated to Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Bist, former Chief Justice of Sikkim High Court. 12. The Arbitrator shall, in terms of Section 11(8) of the Act, furnish his disclosure in writing to the Court within 15 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The Arbitrator shall, in consultation with the parties, fix the remuneration and other chargeable fees. The Arbitrator shall endeavour to hear and pass an Award within the time provided under the statute. 13. There shall be no order as to costs. 14. In sequel thereto, all pending Applications stand disposed of. ________________ G. NARENDAR, C.J. Dt: 10th July, 2025 Rathour PRAVINDRA SINGH RATHOUR Digitally signed by PRAVINDRA SINGH RATHOUR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=23699ccc2fd40ad81b6fd13323779d9e3ae b1097d17dbb53d481cabd25946eed, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=1F65499E931DF71CDAF92A40CC61 79B8E010331BA695239171F906FD5C45C4E8, cn=PRAVINDRA SINGH RATHOUR Date: 2025.07.16 11:35:16 +05'30'