( 2026:HHC:17411 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Arb. Case No.28 of 2025 a/w Arb. Case Nos.31 and 32 of 2025 Date of Decision:- 15.05.2026 Hem Raj Verma ....Petitioner(s) Versus HPSFDC Ltd., and another ....Respondent(s) Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajender Singh Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondent(s) : Ms. Kiran Dhiman, Advocate, for Ms. Shashi Kiran, Advocate, in Arb. Case No.28 of 2025. : Mr. Abhishek Nagta, Advocate, in Arb. Case Nos.31 and 32 of 2025. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral). The present petitions have been filed by the common petitioner(s) under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of an Arbitrator. The facts have been taken from Arbitration Case No.31 of 2025 for the sake of convenience. 2. The requisite notice was sent for appointment of an Arbitrator on 14.10.2024 (Anneuxre P-3 colly) on the basis of 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Clause 36 of the agreement deed, since the work had been awarded for the work of extraction, carriage and truck transportation of resin of resin Lot No.7/2020 (Kunihar). 3. The grouse of the petitioner is that a sum of Rs.2,65,740/- has wrongly been recovered from the client and should be refunded to the client and having received no reply/response from the respondent(s), the present petitions have been filed. 4. The objection raised as such that the recovery was made as per the terms of Clause 24 of the agreement deed, duly signed by both the parties and on account of the shortfall, the plea has also been taken that the written consent had been given by the petitioner for the recovery and he has no objection for the said process. Copy of written consent has been annexed as Annexure R-2. 5. The same has been refuted by filing the replication to that extent that the respondent has not placed on record any documents regarding issuance of COVID ID Card/passes to the petitioner and while imposing the recovery, the respondent had failed to take into consideration Clause 6 of the agreement deed. 6. Regarding the written consent given, it is submitted that the payments were not being released and the petitioner had 3 consented for the adjustment of recovery amount against the payment due to the petitioner in various lots and as the respondent is in a better bargaining position the petitioner had to consent for the adjustment of recovery amount and moreover there was no date on the same. 7. Keeping in view the fact that the parties having agreed to the terms of the agreement, therefore, the matter is liable to be settled by way of the forum which the parties had agreed to resolve by way of arbitration and issues would have to be decided by the Arbitrartor therefore, keeping in view the above, the application(s) of the above three cases are liable to be allowed and a common Arbitrator is liable to be appointed, keeping in view the value as such. 8. Resultantly, the application is allowed and Mr. Rajiv Rai, Advocate of this Court is appointed as a common Arbitrator (Mobile No.9418495100) 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. 9. On his giving consent to arbitrate the dispute between the parties as an Arbitrator, Mr. Rajiv Rai, Advocate 4 shall enter into reference, and shall pass an award in accordance with law. 10. Copy of this order be furnished to the learned counsel for the parties and also be furnished 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. 11. Accordingly, the application is disposed of alongwith pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. (G.S. Sandhawalia) 15th May, 2026 Chief Justice (Munish Thakur)