IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ARB-226-2026 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 15.05.2026 M/S H S CONSTRUCTION COMPANY ....Petitioner(s)

Versus PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (B AND R) FARIDABAD AND OTHERS .....Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI Present: Mr. Gaurav Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Udit Garg, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.

****

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI , J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 11(6), (7) and (8) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for appointment of a Sole Arbitrator.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that there is an agreement between the petitioner and the respondents vide Annexure P-1, which contains a dispute redressal system at clause 24, in which various sub-clauses have been mentioned which have been segregated on the basis of the contract value. He submitted that as per Clause 24.1, in case the contract value is less than Rs. 2 crores, then the matter is to be referred to the concerned authority of Superintending Engineer and in case no decision is taken or the decision taken is to the dissatisfaction of the contractor, then he can go to the Court after decision of the appeal. He further submitted that as per Clause 24.2, in case the contract value is more than Rs. 2 crores and less than Rs. 10 crores, then the reference is to be made to a Sole Arbitrator and in case the contract value is more than Rs. 10 crores, then an Arbitral Tribunal is to be constituted.

3. Learned counsel submitted that although the contract value is less than Rs. 2 crores but when a notice was issued to the respondents, then the Executive Engineer replied that first of all 2% amount is to be deposited as a pre-requisite so that the Arbitrator can be appointed. He submitted that since the Executive Engineer has agreed to the appointment of an Arbitrator, any Sole Arbitrator may be appointed in the present case.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Udit Garg, learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana submitted that there is a clear cut dispute redressal system clause in the agreement, which does not provide for any arbitration where the contract value is less than Rs. 2 crores. In addition to Clauses 24.1, 24.2 and 24.3, he also referred to Clause 24.6, which is in the tabulated form and which clearly provides that no Arbitrator is required where the contract value is upto Rs. 2 crores. He further submitted that so far as the reply filed by the Executive Engineer, as referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, the petitioner cannot take the advantage of the aforesaid letters issued by the Superintending Engineer or the Executive Engineer because there exists no clause under which an Arbitrator can be appointed in the present case. He submitted that in the absence of an arbitration clause with regard to the subject matter of the present case, no Arbitrator can be appointed under Section 11 of the Act.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

6. The relevant clauses of the aforesaid agreement as referred to by learned counsel for the parties i.e. Clauses 24, 24.1, 24.2, 24.3 and the relevant portion of Clause 24.6 are reproduced as under:-

“24.Dispute Redressal System.

24.1 In case of contract(s) of value lesser than Rs.2 cr., the agency will make an appeal to the Appellant Authority i.e. concerned Superintending Engineer who will decide the issue within 90 days. In case of dissatisfaction on the part of the contractor, he can go to Court after the decision of this appeal or after 90 days in case of no decision from the Appellant Authority. 24.2 In case of contract(s) of value more than Rs.2.00 cr. and less than Rs.10.00 cr., the agency will make an appeal to the Appellant Authority i.e. concerned Superintending Engineer who will decide the issue within 90 days. If the contractor is not satisfied with the Appeal, he can go for Arbitration. Adjudication