The presence of an arbitration agreement allows for disputes to be adjudicated by an appointed arbitrator despite objections regarding party involvement.

ORDER

The petitioner is a registered partnership firm and Class I (AA)

contractor registered with the Central Public Works Department. The 1^st respondent on behalf of the 2^nd respondent, invited tenders for the execution of the project titled “Establishment of Medical Devices Park at Life Science Part at Thonnakkal, Thiruvananthapuram – Construction of Knowledge Resource Centre and Allied MEP Works (Re-Tender)”. Petitioner was the lowest bidder and the contract was awarded to it. A copy of the Letter of Acceptance dated 13.04.2022 is produced as Annexure A1. Thereafter the formal agreement was executed between the petitioner and the 1^st respondent on 22.04.2022. A copy of the agreement is produced as Annexure A2. As per the terms of Annexure A2 agreement, the General Conditions of Contract (GCC), Specific Conditions of Contract (SCC) etc. form part of the agreement.

2. According to the petitioner there was delay on the part of the respondents in paying the mobilization advance and also in making payments towards various bills raised by the petitioner. Therefore, the work came to a standstill. Various bills were raised on different dates by the petitioner and the details are mentioned in the memorandum of arbitration request.

3. The petitioner issued a letter dated 24.11.2022 calling upon the 1^st respondent to pass orders directing foreclosure of the agreement in case payments are delayed further. After a long delay, some payments were released. Though a meeting was convened by the Secretary, Industries & Commerce, Thiruvananthapuram, on 05.04.2023, the issues between the petitioner and the respondents could not be resolved. A joint meeting was later held on 17.05.2023 wherein the respondents conveyed that the project would be re- tendered. Annexure A5 is a copy of the minutes of the meeting held on

17.05.2023.

4. On 14.12.2023 a letter was issued by the petitioner invoking Section 2, Clause 25.1 of Annexure A3 - GCC and the 1^st respondent appointed a Conciliator. However, the conciliation failed. Consequently the petitioner invoked arbitration clause in the agreement and issued a notice of Arbitration dated 07.06.2025 nominating a Senior Advocate as the arbitrator. A copy of the notice is produced as Annexure A6. The 1^st respondent issued a reply on 26.06.2025. The said reply is produced as Annexure A7.

5. The appointment of the arbitrator by the petitioner was rejected by the 1^st respondent. Therefore, the petitioner approached this Court under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act . 6. Notice was issued to the respondents and they entered appearance through counsel. The 1^st respondent has filed a counter affidavit denying the assertions and allegations of the petitioner. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents. Perused the pleadings and also the agreement as well as the GCC. The learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent submitted that they being not a party to the arbitration agreement, has been unnecessarily joined as a respondent. This was not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

It is clear that the GCC which forms part of the agreement between the parties provides for arbitration. No serious dispute is raised in this regard by the 1^st respondent. Therefore, I am of the view that this arbitration request can be allowed. Hence the following directions are issued:

1. The Kerala High Court Arbitration Centre is directed to nominate a Senior Advocate from Panel-II, preferably from Ernakulam, as the sole Arbitrator to resolve the disputes that have arisen between the petitioner and the 1^st respondent under Annexure A2 agreement.

2. The learned Arbitrator may entertain all issues between the parties in connection with the said Agreements, including questions of ju