IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:20.04.2026 M/S Suraj Cables (India) Pvt. Ltd.

......Petitioner Versus Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI Present:- Ms. Vaishnavi Sikka, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Sharad Aggarwal, Advocate (Through V.C.) and Ms. Archana Chauhan, Advocate for the respondents.

*****

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI J.(Oral)

1. The present is a petition filed under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator in the present case.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a valid agreement (Annexure P-1) was entered into between the parties, which is in the nature of a rate contract. She further submitted that the aforesaid rate contract contains an arbitration clause, i.e. Clause No.19, which provides that 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/UHBVN/DHBVN. She further submitted that the aforesaid authority, which has been nominated in the aforesaid clause, is an interested party and therefore cannot be permitted to appoint the Sole Arbitrator in view of the conflict of interest under Section 12(5) of the Act. She also submitted that since dispute arose between the parties, the petitioner invoked the arbitration clause by serving notice dated 26.01.2026 (Annexure P-13) upon the respondents, however, no response was received from the respondents. Therefore, she submitted that this Hon’ble Court may appoint a sole arbitrator for adjudicating the dispute.

3. On the other hand, Mr. Sharad Aggarwal, Advocate, appearing through video conferencing and Ms. Archana Chauhan, Advocate, appearing in physical mode, on behalf of the respondents, have submitted that there is no dispute regarding the existence of the agreement (Annexure P-1) or the arbitration clause contained therein, and there is also no dispute regarding the invocation of the arbitration clause by the petitioner by issuing notice (Annexure P-13) upon the respondents, to which the respondents did not reply. They further submitted that the only objection of the respondents is that there is nothing to be paid to the petitioner, as the entire amount has already been paid.

4. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

5. The aforesaid arbitration clause contained in Clause No.19 is reproduced as under:-

19. 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/UHBVN/DHBVN. 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 there under, the statutory modifications thereof for the time being in force, shall be deemed to apply to the Arbitration proceedings under this clause.”

6. The existence of the agreement containing the arbitration clause, as well as the invocation of the said clause by issuance of notice, has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents. The essential requirements for the appointment of an arbitrator are therefore satisfied in the present case, as they are not in dispute.

7. So far as the objection raised by learned cou