2026:HHC:41484 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Arb. Case No. 41 of 2026 Decided on : 25.09.2026 Parveen Kumar …Petitioner Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh and 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. Vishwas Kaushal, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Navlesh Verma, Additional Advocate General. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral ) The present petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the Act’) for appointment of an Arbitrator, pertaining to the work of C/o two number of bridges at RD 32/780 and 40/780 on Uhl Valley road (portion Riyagri to Tikkar) (SH:- C/o 25.00 meter span RCC Box Girder Bridge over Batheri Khad at RD 32/780 and 25.00 meter span RCC Box Girder Bridge over Barohi Nallah at RD 40/780) under NABARD RIDF- XXIII, vide letter of award dated 16.08.2019 (Annexure P-1). 2. A formal agreement bearing No. 71 of 2019-20 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:41484 (Annexure P-2), was executed between the parties. The work was actually completed on 31.08.2024 and the requisite notice dated 20.01.2025 (Annexure P-3), was sent on 20.01.2025, invoking Clause 25 of the GCC for appointment of the Sole Arbitrator and claiming various amounts including withholding the final bill, price escalation payable and idling of manpower and machinery etc. 3. In the reply, it was stated that there was a delay of 47 months in completion of the work and the same was finished on 31.08.2024. The said delay was attributable to the petitioner’s lack of management, inadequate deployment of labour and persistent failure to adhere to the committed schedules despite multiple notices. However, contrary stand as such, was taken that the appointment of the Arbitrator was premature and untenable. 4. It has been further mentioned in the reply that various letters were issued during the period from 03.07.2020 to 04.02.2022, urging the Contractor to speed up the work and admission has been made that time was extended for price escalation for the period with effect from 01.09.2020 to 31.03.2024 vide letter dated 17.09.2024. 5. Keeping in view the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that once the parties had agreed to the mode of settlement by way of arbitration, the present petition deserves 3 2026:HHC:41484 to be allowed, by appointing an Arbitrator, who will look into the said dispute. 6. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Former Judge of this Court (Mobile No. 9816008393), is appointed as an Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties. 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, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Former Judge-Arbitrator, shall enter into reference, and pass an award in accordance with law. 8. Copy of this order be furnished to the learned counsel for the parties as also 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. 9. It is further directed that the Arbitrator after the proceedings are concluded, shall send the record to the Registrar (Judicial) for keeping the same in safe custody, since the challenge is liable to be raised under the provisions of the Arbitration Act to the award in question and it would be in the 4 2026:HHC:41484 interest of justice to preserve the record, whereby the Arbitrator as such has been appointed by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the petitions are disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice September 25, 2026 (Shivank Thakur)