2026:HHC:23780 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CARBC No. 133 of 2025 Decided on: 22.06.2026 Dhani Ram … Petitioner Versus Divisional Manager, Forest Working Division, H.P. State Forest Corporation Limited, Mandi, H.P. … Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 _____________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. R.L. Chaudhary, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Vijay Kumar Arora, Senior Advocate with M/s Hitansh Raj and Avantika Bhandari, Advocates. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has assailed the award passed by the sole Arbitrator in matter of arbitration between Dhani Ram vs. Divisional Manager, Forest Working Division, Mandi. 2. Having heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the parties and having perused the award under challenge, this Court is of the considered view that the award is not sustainable in the eyes of law being hit by sub-section (5) of Section 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The main award dated 10.11.2021 has been passed by the Managing Director of H.P. State Forest Development Corporation Limited, Shimla. In terms of sub-section (5) of Section 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:23780 12 of the Act, notwithstanding any prior agreement to the contrary, any person whose relationship, with the parties or Counsel or the subject-matter of the dispute, falls under any of the categories specified in the Seventh Schedule shall be ineligible to be appointed as an Arbitrator, provided that parties may, subsequent to disputes having arisen between them, waive the applicability of this sub- section by an express agreement in writing. The Seventh Schedule inter alia also refers to an Arbitrator, who is Manager, Director or part of the Management or has a similar controlling influence in an affiliate of one of the parties if the affiliate is directly involved in the matters in dispute of the arbitration. Here the arbitrator happens to be the Managing Director of the respondent-Counter Claimant, who has decided the claim petition and because the appointment of the Arbitrator is hit by sub-section (5) of Section 12 of the Act, as it could be demonstrated before the Court that subsequent to dispute having arisen between the parties, there was a waiver of this sub- section by way of an express agreement in writing between the parties, obviously, the award under challenge is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 3. Accordingly, this petition is allowed by setting aside the award passed by learned Arbitrator dated 10.11.2021, being hit by the provisions of sub-section (5) of Section 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Parties shall be at liberty to re-initiate the process 3 2026:HHC:23780 of arbitration, in accordance with law, if so advised. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge June 22, 2026 (narender)