246 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***

ARB-221-2024 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 08.12.2025 M/s Sokhi Contractors and Engineers .... Petitioner Versus General Manager (Electrification) and another ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI Present: Mr. Dheeraj Mahajan, Advocate &

Mr. Nivish Gautam, Advocate, Mr. Jasjit S. Saini, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Vinish Singla, Senior Panel Counsel, for the respondents-UOI.

****

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI , J . (ORAL)

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as amended by the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) praying for appointment of an independent Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes which have arisen between the parties.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner entered into a Contract with the respondent-Railways vide Annexure P-1 and the entire Contract has been attached along with the reply filed by the respondent vide Annexure R-8. He further submitted that there exists a valid arbitration clause i.e. Clause 64 in the aforesaid Contract and the same has been annexed along with the present petition vide Annexure P-2 which provides that in a case where the total value of all claims in question added together does not exceed 1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Only), then a Sole Arbitrator shall be appointed, who shall be a Gazetted Officer of Railway not below JA Grade, nominated by the General Manager and the Sole Arbitrator shall be appointed within 60 days from the day when a written and valid demand for arbitration is received by the railway. He submitted that there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the aforesaid arbitration clause provides for referring the matter to the Arbitrator. He further submitted that in the aforesaid arbitration clause, it is so provided that it will not be applicable to the excepted matter and in this regard, there is another clause in the aforesaid Contract i.e. Clause 63.1 wherein it has been so provided that those disputes which fall in Clauses 7(j), 8, 18, 22(5), 39, 43(2), 45(i)(a), 55, 55-A(5), 57, 57A, 61(1), 61(2) and 62(1) of Standard General Conditions of Contract shall be deemed as ‘excepted matters’. He also submitted that the respondent is now disputing that the present dispute with the petitioner falls in the excepted matters category as mentioned in the aforesaid Clause 63.1 and also referred to the Clause 63.1 whereby the respondent has relied upon the clause of amendment of the Contract and thereafter, termination of the Contract. He further submitted that it is a case where the petitioner has never abandoned the Contract and rather the petitioner sent a legal notice to the respondent vide Annexure P-3 by stating that the respondent has not supplied the material to the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner-Company has not been able to commence the work and rather the petitioner has been financially suffering because of the conduct of the respondent.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that as per the Contract, the petitioner was to supply labour and the labour could work only when the respondent supplied material and the period of contract which is mentioned in the Contract was six months which otherwise was also extended for time to time but even during the extended period of time, the respondent did not supply any material. He further submitted that in the event of respondent not supplying the material, the labour of the petitioner could not have commenced the work and therefore, the petitioner has invoked the aforesaid arbitration clause by serving a notice dated 26.03.2024 to the respondent vide Annexure P-9 and the respondent has replied to the aforesaid notice whereby they asked the petitioner to supply details of the claim so that necessary action can be taken. He further submitted that the entire nature of