IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 18.02.2026 Dr. Harshbir Singh Pannu and another …….Applicants Versus Dr. Jaswinder Singh ….Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE Present: Mr. Manjit Singh Khaira, Senior Advocate, (Through Video Conferencing)

with Mr. Manspreet Singh, Advocate, for the applicants.

None for the respondent.

****

SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE ( Oral )

1. This Court, on the last occasion i.e. 13.02.2026, had afforded another opportunity to the respondent to be represented, as it was found that the respondent, despite being served the notice issued by this Court on 04.02.2026, was not represented.

2. Today, when the matter is taken up, no one appears for the respondent.

3. In view of the above, this Court proceeds to decide the matter on merits.

4. This case has a chequered history, which commences from appointment of a Former Judge of this Court as an Arbitrator, for the first time vide order of this Court dated 02.03.2020. Vide order dated 27.07.2021, the Arbitrator fixed the fees with the consent of counsel for both the parties. However, when the parties failed to deposit their respective shares of the arbitral fee, the Arbitrator terminated the proceedings vide order dated 27.07.2021. The said decision of the Arbitrator was challenged by petitioner No.1 herein, by filing a writ petition, which was disposed of on 15.02.2023 in view of the decision given by the Apex Court in Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Vs. Afcons Gunanusa JV, (2024) 4 SCC 481. Thereafter, the petitioners herein served a notice upon the respondent invoking the arbitration clause, before filing ARB-357-2023 for appointment of an Arbitrator and for determination of the fees to be paid to him. Despite service on the respondent, no response was filed. Accordingly, this Court appointed Mr. Aman Bahri, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, as Amicus Curiae, to assist the Court.

5. After considering submissions of the rival parties, ARB-

357-2023 was decided on 07.01.2025 in the following terms:-

“17. From the examination of the above reproduced order, it is clear that the petitioners had served two legal notices upon the respondent. The first notice was sent on 13.09.2017 and by second notice, Annexure P-9, petitioners invoked the arbitration clause. The earlier petition filed by the petitioners was accepted by the above reproduced order and an Arbitrator was appointed, who had terminated the proceedings vide order, Annexure P-8. On the basis of the same legal notice dated 03.04.2019, Annexure P-9, petitioners have approached this Court once again for appointment of an Arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act. Once an Arbitrator already stood appointed pursuant to the legal notice, Annexure P-9, petitioners are debarred from approaching this Court all over again and the present petition is not maintainable.

18. For the afore-going reasons, this Court does not find any merit in the petition, which is dismissed with no order as to costs.

19. In the end, this Court records its appreciation for the invaluable assistance rendered by Mr. Aman Bahri, learned Amicus.

20. Pending application(s), if any, is disposed off.”

5.1. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision, the petitioners approached the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.14630 of 2025 (Harshbir Singh Pannu and another vs. Jaswinder Singh), which came to be finally disposed of on 08.12.2025 with the following observations:-

“416. In the present case, the fees of the entire arbitration had been determined by the Sole Arbitrator in accordance with the Fourth Schedule of the Act, 1996, with the consent of the appellants and the respondent herein.

417. As discussed in the earlier parts of this judgment, the decision of this Court in Afcons (supra) held that the fees stipulated in the Fourth Schedule is the model fee schedule, and is binding on all parties. When an arbitral tribunal fixes the fees in terms of the Fourth Schedule, the parties are not permi