Office Notes, reports, orders or SL. proceedings or Date COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS No directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures D1-

21 AO No.322 of 2014 M/S Steel Fabs .....Appellant Versus State of Uttaranchal/Uttarakhand .....Respondent Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J.

Mr. Shobhit Saharia, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. M.S. Bisht, Brief Holder for the State.

The matter was referred for arbitration, which did not enter into arbitration. The reasons, as given, were noted by this Court in its order dated 05.05.2015, as follows:-

“The sole Arbitrator Smt.Monika Pant has based her finding on the premise that after the death of Mr. Rajendra Kumar Singhal, the cause of action on behalf of the firm which arose out of the contract/agreement dated 12.7.1982 had come to an end as a natural consequence and at the most, the same would have survived only to the legal representative of the late Rajendra Kumar Singhal. Since Mukesh Singhal himself was not pursuing the matter, so, there was no legal propriety to Upendra Kumar Singhal, much less any right or authority under the law, to pursue any claim on behalf of the original firm.”

Thereafter, this Court had decided that the sole Arbitrator should decide the controversy. The Court observed as follows:-

“In view of what has been stated above, this Court sets aside the findings of the sole Arbitrator dated 2.6.2012 and the judgment of the District Judge dated 30.4.2014 as well, and directs the Arbitrator to adjudicate the controversy between the parties effectively with all speaking reasons and logic.”

The Court, on 05.05.2015, had appointed an arbitrator, but he was subsequently relieved on his request by the Court’s order dated 29.07.2015. Finally, on 09.10.2025, this Court had noted that the consent of Mr. D.P. Gairola (retd. District Judge) be obtained for his appointment as Arbitrator in the matter.

The consent letter has been received.

He is agreeable to be the Arbitrator in the matter.

Accordingly, Mr. D.P. Gairola (retd.

District Judge) is appointed as the sole Arbitrator.

The Registry shall ensure that all the documents, including claims and objections are received back from the earlier arbitrator, Mr. Kailash Chandra Tiwari, Advocate, and they are immediately forwarded to Mr. D.P. Gairola (retd. District Judge), within a week from today.

On 05.05.2015, this Court has recorded as follows:-

“Needless to say that the pleadings and evidence of both the parties are already on the record. So, the learned Arbitrator, after rendering an opportunity of oral submissions to the respective counsel, will give his award.”

It is stated by learned counsel for the parties that objections and evidence are already on record, and the Arbitrator may proceed from that point. That may be done by the learned sole Arbitrator. In addition to it, if any of the parties is willing to adduce any further evidence, the learned Arbitrator may give an opportunity to the parties, and proceed to give award accordingly, in accordance with law.

The appeal has already been decided by this Court on 05.05.2015. The matter is pending because the sole Arbitrator, who was appointed on that date, had requested for relieving him, and now, new Arbitrator has been appointed. Therefore, nothing survives in this appeal at this stage.

(Ravindra Maithani J.)

19.02.2026 RV