IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 15.05.2026 M/s Haryana Electrical Equipment ….Petitioner Versus Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others ….Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE Present: None for the applicant.

Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Addl. A.G., Haryana, for the respondents.

****

SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE( Oral )

1. Instant application u/s 11 (6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, ‘1996 Act’), seeks appointment of an Arbitrator.

2. No reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents.

3. The rival parties herein entered into agreements/tender dated 29.09.2021 and 21.02.2022 (Annexure P-1 and Annexure P-2) containing an arbitration clause as follows:

“Clause 22. Arbitration:- All the matters, questions, disputes, differences and/or claims arising out of and/or concerning and/or in connection and/or relating to this contract whether or not obligations of either or both parties under this contract be subsisting at the time of such dispute and whether or not this contract has been terminated or purported to be terminated or completed, shall be referred to the Sole Arbitrator to be nominated by Managing Director/UHBVNL/DHBVNL. The award of the arbitrator shall be final and binding on the parties to this contract. Provisions of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 and the Rules made thereunder, the statutory modifications thereof for the time being in force, shall be deemed to apply to the Arbitration proceedings under this clause.”

3.1 Dispute erupted between the parties. The petitioner served notice dated 16.09.2022 (Annexure P-11) upon respondents for settlement of dispute, but to no avail. Thereafter, the petitioner, vide notice dated 16.10.2022 (Annexure P-15) again requested the respondents to refer the said matter to the arbitration. Despite several requests, the respondents failed to act upon the request of the petitioner.

3.2 Thereafter, petitioner filed the petition under Section 11(6) of ‘1996 Act’ before this Hon’ble Court for appointment of Arbitrator vide ARB-413-2022. The same was dismissed as rendered infructuous vide order dated 30.09.2024 (Annexure P- 18) as the respondents issued communication dated 03.09.2024 (Annexure P-16) and 09.09.2024 (Annexure P-17), whereby the consent of the petitioner was needed for appointment of one of the persons named there as an arbitrator. Furthermore, the petitioner, vide communication dated

16.10.2024 (Annexure P-19), gave consent to appoint Mr. P.K.

Goyal as the sole arbitrator to resolve the dispute.

3.3 Despite the consent of the petitioner, the respondents had failed to appoint the arbitrator despite the several requests. Furthermore, respondents again asked for the consent vide communication dated 24.04.2025 (Annexure P-21) and petitioner, again, gave its consent for the appointment of the arbitrator vide communication dated 02.05.2025 (Annexure P- 22). Thus, the petitioner left with no other alternative remedy, but to file the present petition.

4. Learned counsel for respondents could not dispute the existence and execution of arbitration agreement, exhaustion of remedy by applicant under the arbitration clause in the agreement between rival parties, service of notice, dispute between the parties being arbitrable and the cause not being a deadwood.

5. The law regarding the scope of examination under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is well settled. At the stage of considering an application for appointment of an arbitrator, the Court is only required to undertake a limited prima facie examination as to the existence and validity of the arbitration agreement and whether the disputes are manifestly non-arbitrable. Unless it is ex facie clear that the arbitration agreement is non-existent, invalid, or the disputes are demonstrably non-arbitrable, the matter ought to be referred to arbitration.

6. The Apex Court in Vidya Drolia Vs. Durga Trading Corporation, (2021) 2 SC