IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:19.01.2026 M/s Gurinder Singh Contractor ......Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI Present:- Mr. R.K. Girdhar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Somesh Arora, Addl. A.G. Punjab.

*****

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI J.(Oral)

1. The present is a petition filed under Section 11 read with Section 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), seeking appointment of an independent arbitrator in the present case.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a valid agreement was entered into between the parties with regard to the work of construction of Disty and distribution system of Gogron life irrigation scheme off take at RD 85.200 Km of Kandi Canal State-II and the said agreement has been annexed with the present petition as Annexure A-1. He further submitted that in the aforesaid agreement, there exists a valid arbitration clause i.e. Clause 25(v), wherein it is provided that all disputes or differences in respect of which the decision is not final and conclusive shall, at the request of either party made in communication sent through registered A.D. post, be referred for arbitration to a sole Arbitrator. He submitted that a pre-arbitral mechanism has been provided under the agreement for making claims before the respondents and the said mechanism has been duly exhausted by the petitioner and with regard to the same there is no dispute but thereafter when dispute was not settled between the parties, the petitioner invoked the aforesaid arbitration clause by issuing a notice to the respondents vide Annexure A-21 dated 22.02.2024. In response thereto, the respondents rejected the claim of the petitioner by placing reliance upon Clause 25(xvii) of the aforesaid agreement, which provides that ‘neither party shall be entitled to bring a claim for arbitration, if it is not filed as per the time period already specified or within six months of the date of the completion of the work as certified by the Engineer or of the date of abandonment of the work or breach of contract under any of the clauses etc. He submitted that the aforesaid rejection of the invocation of the arbitration clause on the basis of Clause 25(xvii) was not sustainable, in view of the fact that the same is a matter to be decided by the learned Arbitrator, with regard to the non- arbitrability of the arbitration clause. He further submitted that there is no dispute regarding the agreement between the parties, the arbitration clause contained therein and the issuance of the legal notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to the respondents. So far as the aforesaid ground, on the basis of which the invocation of the arbitration clause has been rejected, the same would not constitute a ground at the stage of reference under Section 11 of the Act for this Court to non-suit the petitioner on the said issue. Therefore, he submitted that this Hon’ble Court may appoint an independent and impartial arbitrator for adjudicating the dispute which has arisen between the parties.

3. On the other hand, learned State counsel submitted that there is neither any dispute regarding existence of the aforesaid agreement between the parties, nor is there any dispute with regard to the aforesaid arbitration clause contained therein and the service of notice invoking arbitration clause upon the respondents. He, however, submitted that the only objection raised by the respondent-State is that under Clause 25 of the agreement (Annexure A-1), there is Sub-clause (xvii) which provides that neither party shall be entitled to bring a claim for arbitration if the same is not filed within six months from the date of completion of the work as certified by the Engineer or from the date of abandonment of the work, or breach of contract under any of its clauses. He further submitted that in