IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:26.02.2026 Sandeep Kumar ......Petitioner Versus Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

.....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI Present:- Ms. Ankita Ahuja, Advocate and Mr. Jagdeep Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Naveen Batra, Advocate for the respondent.

*****

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI J.(Oral)

1. The present is a petition filed under Section 11 (5) and (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), seeking appointment of an independent Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes and differences which have arisen between the parties.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is an agreement dated 18.12.2019 (Annexure A-2) between the petitioner and the respondent, which contains an arbitration clause. Vide Article-1, the documents which shall constitute the contract documents would be the contract itself, tender documents as defined in the General Instructions to tenderers and Letter of Acceptance. Vide Article-4, jurisdiction has been defined, wherein it is so provided by way of a non-obstante clause that any and all actions and proceeding arising out of or relative to the contract (including any arbitration in terms thereof) shall be only in the Court of Competent Civil Jurisdiction in this behalf at Panipat. (Where the contract has been signed on behalf of the owner) and only the said Court(s) shall have jurisdiction to entertain and try any such action(s) and/or proceeding(s) to the exclusion of all other Courts. Since the General Conditions of Contract are applicable to the main contract, learned counsel referred to the General Conditions of Contract, specifically Section 9 thereof pertaining to arbitration. Clause 9.0.4.0 provides that the venue of arbitration under Clause 9.0.1.0 shall be at New Delhi, provided that the Arbitrator may with the consent of the owner and the contractor agree upon any other venue and as per Clause 9.0.1.0, subject to the provisions of Clauses 6.7.1.0, 6.7.2.0 and 9.0.2.0, any dispute arising out of a notified claim of the contractor included in the final bill of the contractor in accordance with the provisions of Clause 6.8.3.0 hereof and any dispute arising out of any claim of the owner against the contractor, shall be referred to the arbitration of a Sole Arbitrator and in this way, the arbitration process has been defined in the aforesaid clause, which provides that with regard to the notified claim of the contractor, who is the present petitioner, the matter is to be referred to a Sole Arbitrator. She further submitted that after a dispute arose between the parties, the petitioner invoked the arbitration clause by issuance of notice dated 12.12.2024 (Annexure A-7) to the respondent but the respondent denied the same by way of reply vide Annexure A-8. She submitted that in these circumstances, since the arbitration mechanism has failed, the present petition has been filed under Section 11 of the Act for appointment of a Sole Arbitrator.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that there is no dispute with regard to the existence of the aforesaid contract and the aforesaid clauses which have been referred to by learned counsel for the petitioner. The only objection of the respondent is with regard to the non-arbitrability of the dispute. He submitted that as per Clause 9.0.1.0, any dispute arising out of a notified claim of the contractor or any claim(s) of the owner against the contractor shall be referred to the arbitration of a sole arbitrtor. The contactor shall, however, be entitled to raise as a set-off defence or counter claim any claim which is not a notified claim included in the contractor's final bill. He further submitted that whether it is notified claim or not has to be decided by the General Manager. He also submitted that since it is not a notified claim, it cannot be referred to arbit