IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:28.01.2026 R.K. Jindal ......Petitioner Versus Municipal Corporation Chandigarh and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI Present:- Mr. Dinesh Nagar, Advocate for the petitioner.

None for the respondents.

*****

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI J.(Oral)

1. The present is a petition filed under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), seeking appointment of an arbitrator in the present case.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a valid agreement (Annexure P-1) was entered into between the parties, which contains an arbitration clause, i.e. Clause No. 25. The said clause provides that any dispute or difference arising between the parties shall be referred to the sole arbitration of the Superintending Engineer of the concerned Circle in the Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh.

3. He further submitted that the Superintending Engineer of the respondent-department cannot be appointed as an arbitrator because of conflict of interest in view of Section 12(5) of the Act. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Perkins Eastman Architects DPC and another v. HSCC (India) Limited, (2020) 20 SCC

760, wherein it has been held that unilateral appointment of a sole arbitrator by one of the parties is not permissible in law.

4. He further submitted that earlier the petitioner had filed a civil suit for recovery before learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh, however, the same was dismissed vide judgment dated 07.07.2025 (Annexure P-2) on the ground that appropriate remedy was of arbitration and rather liberty was granted to the petitioner to initiate arbitration proceedings in terms of the contract, subject to limitation. In this regard, he referred to Para No. 16 of the aforesaid judgment.

5. He further submitted that after dismissal of the civil suit, the petitioner invoked the aforesaid arbitration clause by issuing a legal notice dated 27.08.2025 (Annexure P-3) to the respondents, however, no response has been received from them. He further submitted that even before this Court, the respondents chose not to appear and were proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 15.01.2026. 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.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

7. None has appeared on behalf of the respondents and on the last date of hearing, i.e. 15.01.2026, the respondents were proceeded against ex parte. The aforesaid order is reproduced as under:

“As per the report of Registry, notices issued to the respondents have been received back duly served, however, none has caused appearance on their behalf.

Therefore, they are proceeded against ex parte. Adjourned to 28.01.2026, for final arguments”.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the aforesaid arbitration clause i.e. Clause No. 25 as well as to the notice invoking arbitration vide Annexure P-3.

9. So far as the earlier suit filed by the petitioner is concerned, a perusal of the aforesaid judgment would show that liberty was granted to the petitioner to initiate arbitration proceedings in terms of the contract.

10. Para No.16 of the the aforesaid judgment which has been attached alongwith the present petition at Annexure P-2 is reproduced as under:-

“16. In view of the above findings, this Court is of the considered opinion that the plaintiff has failed to establish through cogent and admissible evidence that he is entitled to the recovery amount claimed. Additionally, the non-invocation of the arbitration clause renders the suit not maintainable. The plaintiff is at liberty to initiate arbitration proceedings as per the contract, if the same is within limitation. Accordingly, the suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 6,84,672/-along wi