JUDGMENT :

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J.

CM-3207-CII-2026

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and written statement filed on behalf of the respondents is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. 

CM-3208-CII-2026

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the documents as Annexures R-1 to R-13 are taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.

Main Case:

1. The present application has been filed under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) praying for appointment of an independent Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes and differences which have arisen between the parties.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that there was a Contract executed between the applicant and the respondents vide Annexure P-1, which contains a valid arbitration clause and the same is reflected at Page No.36 of the paperbook. The aforesaid clause stipulates that it was agreed between the parties that the general conditions of contract including condition No.70 pertaining to the settlement of disputes by Arbitration, form part of this agreement. He referred to the aforesaid general condition of the contract annexed at Page No.131 of the paperbook wherein Condition 70 provides that all the disputes and differences between the parties to the Contract (other than those for which the decision of the C.W.E. or any other person is by the Contract expressed to be final and binding) shall, after written notice by either party to the Contract, be referred to the Sole Arbitrator. He further submitted that a dispute arose between the parties and initially the applicant had filed a writ petition bearing No.CWP-21657-2025 before this Court which was dismissed as withdrawn since the petitioner had so submitted that he is entitled to interest on the delayed refund as well as damages and he intends to invoke the arbitration clause for the said purpose and it was in view of the aforesaid that the permission was granted to the petitioner to withdraw the petition with liberty as aforesaid. He submitted that the dispute still exists between the parties and hence, a notice under Section 21 of the Act was issued to the respondents for invoking the aforesaid arbitration clause vide Annexure P-31 on 05.12.2025. However, no response was received from the respondent in this regard. In view of the same, he prays that any independent Sole Arbitrator may be appointed by this Court.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents-UOI has submitted that there is no dispute with regard to existence of the aforesaid clause in the Contract (Annexure P-1) and the invocation of the said clause by issuing a notice to the respondents under Section 21 of the Act vide Annexure P-31. He however submitted that the respondents have two-fold objections. Firstly, the applicant had filed a writ petition which he had withdrawn and hence, he cannot file an application under Section 11 of the Act. Secondly, the claim sought to be referred by the applicant is a stale claim and barred by limitation and therefore, this Court cannot appoint an Arbitrator.

4. I have heard learned counsels for the parties.

5. The existence of an agreement between the parties containing an arbitration clause is not disputed by learned counsel for the respondents. The invocation thereof by the applicant by issuing notice under Section 21 of the Act to the respondents is also not in dispute. However, the aforesaid two-fold objections which the learned counsel for the respondents have raised, are required to be considered by this Court. First objection which was taken by learned counsel for the respondents was that earlier a writ petition was filed by the applicant before this Court which was dismissed as withdrawn vide Annexure P-30 dated 13.10.2025. The aforesaid order is reproduced as under:-

“1. At the outset, counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of the instant