JUDGMENT :

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J.

1. The present application has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) read with Section 151 of CPC, seeking appointment of an independent Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes and differences which have arisen between the parties.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that an e-tender was floated by the respondents on behalf of Chandigarh Housing Board for running and maintenance of some public toilets and the applicant participated in the bid and was selected as the successful bidder. The said tender was allotted to the applicant vide allotment letter dated 18.03.2021 and pursuant to the same, an agreement was entered into between the parties on 09.04.2021. He submitted that a dispute has arisen between the parties pertaining to some payment, regarding which there is an arbitration clause i.e. Clause 18 of the special conditions and other related documents for submission of financial bid, which has been attached along with the present arbitration case as Annexure A-1. He further submitted that as per the aforesaid arbitration clause, the disputes if any, arising during the period of the agreement between CHB and the agency shall be referred to the sole arbitration of the Chairman CHB or a person nominated by him. He further submitted that considering the provisions of Section 12(5) of the Act and the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in various judgments, the aforesaid person cannot be appointed as an Arbitrator as he is an interested person and there would be a conflict of interest and therefore, any other independent Sole Arbitrator may be appointed by this Court. He also submitted that since a dispute has arisen between the parties, the applicant invoked the arbitration clause vide Annexure A-2 dated 04.06.2025 by sending a notice to the respondents proposing the names of three Arbitrators, out of which any one Arbitrator may be appointed by the respondents but no response was received from the respondents and therefore, the present application has been filed seeking appointment of an independent Arbitrator.

3. On the other hand, Mr. Deepak Malhotra, Additional Standing Counsel for the respondents submitted that there is no dispute with regard to the existence of the aforesaid Clause 18 of the special conditions and other related documents for submission of financial bid but the aforesaid document is not an agreement between the parties. He submitted that the agreement containing the arbitration clause i.e. Clause 25 is at page No.159 of the paper-book, which also provides for arbitration but it is so provided under the aforesaid Clause 25 that first of all the applicant is to raise the dispute before the Engineer-in-Charge and each party invoking arbitration must exhaust the aforesaid mechanism of settlement of claims/disputes prior to invoking arbitration. Thereafter, Clause 25(ii) provides that dispute or difference shall be referred for adjudication through arbitration by a Tribunal having Sole Arbitrator where claimed amount is Rs.20 crore or less. He further submitted that although the claimed amount is less than Rs.20 crore but a Sole Arbitrator can be appointed only after raising the claims/disputes before the Engineer-in-Charge and the applicant has not adopted the aforesaid pre-arbitral mechanism in this regard and therefore on this ground, the present arbitration case is liable to be dismissed.

4. While responding to the argument raised by the learned counsel for the respondents, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the argument raised by learned counsel for the respondents is misconceived in view of the fact that even the agreement referred to by the learned counsel for the respondents provides that the original bid document of the Contractor will also form a part of the terms and conditions of the agreement as mentioned at page No.262 of the paper-book, which is the concluding