2026:UHC:4063 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA 29TH MAY, 2026 ARBITRATION APPLICATION No. 54 OF 2024 M/s Ex- Soldiers Mechanicals Works. …Applicant Versus Union of India and others. …Respondents Counsel for the applicant. : Mr. Aditya Pratap Singh, learned counsel, learned counsel. Counsel for the respondents. : Mr. Atul Bhatt, learned CGSC for the Union of India. JUDGMENT : 1. The present application has been filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an Arbitrator for adjudicating the disputes between the parties arising out of work order dated 20.01.2017. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the respondents, in their counter affidavit, have admitted that the dispute falls within the scope of Arbitration Clause No. 17 under the General Conditions of Contract, and they have even stated that they are taking steps for appointment of an arbitrator. In support of the submission, he has placed reliance on paragraph no. 10 of the counter affidavit. Paragraph no. 10 of the counter affidavit is extracted below :- “10. That the contents of paragraph no. 15 of the Arbitration Application are not admitted, hence denied and in reply thereto it is being submitted that as the contractor has already been issued with completion letter dated 27 Apr 2024 and due payment has been regularized, Invoking the arbitration clause by referring to clause/ condition No 70 of IAFW-2249 is not justified. However, respondent No 3 has already initiated a 1 2026:UHC:4063 case for appointments of arbitrator vide AGE (I) Raiwala 8316/06/E8 dated 08 Jan 2025 and the direction from Higher authority is still awaited.” 3. The counter affidavit was filed long back in February, 2025 and even after expiry of considerable time, the Arbitrator has not been appointed. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that there has been change in the Policy, and now the Appointing Authority is Chief Engineer, Central Command, Lucknow, and it is for the said reason that delay has occurred. He has no objection in case the Court appoints the Arbitrator. 5. Counsel for the parties have agreed that the venue of arbitration be at Dehradun. 6. In view of the above, the application is allowed. The Court proposes name of Shri Shankar Raj, (Retd.) District & Sessions Judge, residing at Dehradun, as Arbitrator for adjudicating the disputes between the parties. Let his consent and necessary disclosures, as per provisions of Section 11(8), be obtained by the Office within four weeks. 7. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly. ______________________ MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C.J. Dt: 29th May, 2026 Rahul 2 RAHUL PRAJAPATI Digitally signed by RAHUL PRAJAPATI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=aa4fa3bee6691397758b14516ed3e66e6 1bf4c848741983ed8c39e4145cf1dab, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=303B55CC3063D34AC45BF8A192F CAD15C390A1AAD7B39857D2540AE4C28A4898, cn=RAHUL PRAJAPATI Date: 2026.05.29 16:11:10 +05'30'