HI GH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAI NI TAL Hon’ble Justice Sri Rakesh Thapliyal

17^th December 2025 Appeal from Order No. 354 of 2024 State of Uttarakhand & Another …............ appellants Vs.

M/S B. Patel and company and others ....Respondents with Appeal from Order No. 355 of 2024 State of Uttarakhand & Another …............ appellants Vs.

M/S B. Patel and company and others ....Respondents with Civil Revision No. 90 of 2022 State of Uttarakhand & others …............ Revisionists Vs.

M/S B. Patel and company and others ....Respondents Counsel for the State/Appellants: Mr. I.P.Kohli, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

Counsel Respondents: Mr. D.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent no.1.

Mr. I.D. Paliwal, learned Standing Counsel for State of U.P./respondent no.2 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.

Brief facts of the case are that a tender was floated by the Public Works Department in 1990 for construction of road in Dwarahat city, District Almora and M/s B. Patel and Company was declared as a successful bidder and awarded work contract in 1990. On completion of work, some dispute arose and ultimately, the successful bidder, namely, M/s B. Patel and Company invoked Section 20 of Arbitration Act, 1940 for appointment of the Arbitrator in the court of the Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Lucknow and which was registered as Case No. 193 of 1993. On 02.11.1995, the Special Secretary (Law) & Additional Legal Remembrancer and the Chief Engineer, Kumaon Zone were appointed as Arbitrators for resolving the dispute. Thereafter the Arbitral Tribunal passed an award on 04.11.2000 and to make it a rule of law, the respondent-company approached to the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Lucknow. Subsequently the learned Civil Judge by judgment and order dated

24.05.2007 made the award as a rule of law.

2. Being aggrieved with the order passed by the learned Civil Judge, the State of U.P. approached Allahabad High Court Bench at Lucknow by preferring FAFO No. 925 of 2007, wherein, respondent-company was arrayed as respondent no.1 and the State of Uttarakhand was arrayed as respondent no.2.

3. In FAFO No. 925 of 2007 the State of Uttarakhand was arrayed as respondent no.2 because in 2000, the State of U.P. was bifurcated and the State of Uttarakhand came into existence and the work for which the contract was awarded to the respondent-company, falls within the territorial jurisdiction of State of Uttarakhand.

4. The State of U.P, in the appeal, confined their arguments to the extent that since the work was carried out in the area, which is the part of the State of Uttarakhand, therefore, liability to make the payment is of State of Uttarakhand. On such stand of the State of U.P., the State of Uttarakhand moved an application for transposition. Subsequently, the FAFO No. 925 of 2007 was disposed of only on the ground that the State of U.P. come up with the stand that the liability is of the State of Uttarakhand. One more aspect was also taken into consideration by the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, while disposing of the FAFO that since the State of U.P. has not contested the matter on merit and shifted the liability upon the State of Uttarakhand and the counsel for the respondent-company also informed to the court that they have not filed any execution against the State of U.P., rather they have filed the execution against the State of Uttarakhand. Taking into consideration all these aspects, the transposition application moved by the State of Uttarakhand was also dismissed. The aforesaid appeal was finally disposed of by the High Court on 19.02.2024. Now the present appeal has been preferred by the State of Uttarakhand under Section 39 of Arbitration Act, challenging the judgment and order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Lucknow in Misc. Case No. 89 of 2005 along with the delay condonation application.

5. As per the office report, there is a delay of 5444 days and the respondents have filed their objection to the