1 2026:HHC:17421 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Arb. Case No.309 of 2025. Date of decision: 15.05.2026 ______________________________________________________ M/s Monal Construction Pvt. Ltd. …..Applicant Versus State of HP & another …Respondents ______________________________________________________ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. Whether approved for reporting? ______________________________________________________ For the Applicant: Mr. Suneet Goel, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vivek Negi, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Navlesh Verma, Additional Advocate General. G.S. Sandhawalia , Chief Justice ( O ral) Appointment of an Arbitrator is sought under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the Act’), on account of the Award letter dated 11.07.2019 (Annexure P-1), regarding the dispute which has arisen for construction of Bagsaid to Thunag via Raindhar road Km 0/000 to 9/500 (SH: P/L, M/T, CD Works, R/walls, 2 R/wall Parapets Side Drain and K.M. Stone etc. in Km. 0/0 to 9/500) under NABARD RIDF XXIV. 2. The parties are stated to have entered into an Agreement on 19.04.2022 (Annexure P-2). 3. Clause 25 of the Agreement provides that if there exists a dispute between the parties, the matter is to be settled by way of arbitration. 4. Legal notice was sent on 19.04.2025 (Annexure P-4) to the respondents, nominating three persons proposed to be appointed one of them, as an Arbitrator. 5. Reply to the application has been filed, wherein it is submitted that one of the persons mentioned in the Legal Notice had been finalized for appointment as an Arbitrator and, therefore, the petition had become infructuous. Further plea was taken that the work could not be completed as the petitioner had failed to meet the planned schedule despite the availability of hindrance free site. 3 6. Keeping in view the stand taken by the respondents in the reply that the name of one person out of the aforesaid three persons had been finalized for appointment as an Arbitrator, there is no dispute on the merits of the issue of the appointment of an Arbitrator. However, this Court has been informed that the said Arbitrator has been appointed as permanent Consultant by the NHAI and, therefore, is not in a position to take up the said assignment. 7. Resultantly, in view of the above, the present application is allowed and Shri Ashok Chauhan, Engineer-in-Chief (retd.) is appointed as Arbitrator, to resolve 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. 8. On his giving consent to arbitrate the dispute between the parties as an Arbitrator, Shri Ashok Chauhan, Engineer-in-Chief (retd.), R/o HPPWD 4 House No. 47 New, Friends Enclave Kalheli Bhuntar Distt. Kullu, H.P. shall enter into reference, and shall pass an award, in accordance with law. 9. Copy of this order be forwarded 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. 10. The application is disposed of accordingly alongwith pending application(s), if any. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice. May 15, 2026 (hemlata)