IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH.

CM-25855-2025 and RA-CR-198-2025 IN ARB-160-2022.

Date of Decision: 23.01.2026.

M/S S.R. ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION ... Review applicant-petitioner Versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ... Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ.

PRESENT Review-applicant/petitioner in person.

Mr. Arun Gosain, Advocate, for the respondents.

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (ORAL)

The present review application along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking condonation of delay of 369 days in filing the review application has been filed for seeking review of the order dated 12.11.2024 passed in ARB-160-2022.

2 The bare facts are that the petitioner filed the petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for appointment of an independent arbitrator. The contention of the review-applicant-

petitioner, noticed by this Court, reads thus: -

“[3]. Arbitration Case No.140 of 2013 was decided by this Court on 22.11.2013, thereby appointing sole Arbitrator to enter upon reference and adjudicate the disputes inter se the parties. The award was published, but dispute of payment of audited final bill was left as the same was in the custody of the respondents. The Arbitrator while considering claim No.11 had observed that this claim cannot be considered till audited final bill is placed and examined. The claimant can raise dispute, if any, after the audited final bill is received. Even the Department failed to take any action for production of audited final bill before the Arbitrator. The contractor could not be paid the amount accordingly.

[4]. Petitioner again requested the respondent(s) for supply of audited final bill and refund of additional security, but the same was not entertained by the respondent(s). The work was completed by the petitioner, but the necessary completion certificate was not issued by the respondent(s). The matter was ultimately referred by the High Court to the Arbitrator. Not only the disputes were pending between the parties, but future tenders of the petitioner were also banned by the respondent(s) till the settlement of disputes by means of arbitration. The Arbitrator had published the arbitral award on 16.05.2015, but claim No.11 regarding payment of final bill could not be adjudicated in the absence of furnishing audited final bill by the respondent(s), which was in the custody of the respondent(s). The audited final bill was not presented despite directions issued by the Arbitrator. Due to the defaults and non-corporation by the respondent(s), the Arbitrator could not decide the same and ultimately had to leave claim No.11 with a liberty to the claimant to raise dispute, if any, after audited final bill is received. The petitioner has also staked its claim regarding claim No.10 for the release of additional security deposits in the shape of Special Term Deposit Receipt (STDR), but till date, the said STDR has not been released being illegally withheld by the respondents. Future tenders of the petitioner were also banned in an arbitrary manner. Petitioner has also requested respondent No.3 to release STDR which was in the custody of respondent No.3 and also copy of audited final bill duly checked by PCDA Western Command, Chandigarh.

[5]. The aforesaid request was sent to respondent No.3 by registered post, but admittedly, the said communication has not been replied by the respondents. Petitioner has sought second reference in view of negligence, default and non-corporation by the respondent-Department before the Arbitrator for non- production of audited final bill and non-payment of STDR, resulting in unnecessary proceedings.”

3 It was noticed by the Court that an award had been passed earlier but in its order dated 28.10.2022, it passed order to the following effect:-

“[9]. In the instant case, claim No.11 was in respect of Rs.4,38,029/- at the relevant time and was n