Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings SL.

Date or directions COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS No and Registrar’s order with Signatures

07.03.2025 Misc. Application (MCC No.19693 of 2024)

IN ARBAP NO. 43 OF 2018 Hon'ble G. Narendar, C.J.

Heard Mr. Vinay Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. J.C. Pande, learned Standing Counsel for the State- respondents.

2. The applicant is before this Court in peculiar circumstances. The applicant had earlier entered into two contracts with the respondents and in the course of execution of those contracts, certain disputes arose and in view of the arbitration clause, the applicant invoked the provisions of Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short “the Act”) and therein sought for appointment of an arbitrator in terms of the arbitration clause. The said arbitration application was numbered as Arbitration Application No.05 of 2016 and the same came to be disposed of on 05.04.2019 and one Mr. J.K. Pant, Retd. Chief Engineer, P.W.D. was appointed by this Court as an Arbitrator and dispute arising under one of the contracts was referred to him; that the Arbitrator entered upto reference and also passed an Award.

3. Similarly, Arbitration Application No.04 of 2016 seeking for appointment of an Arbitrator in respect of the disputes arising under the second contract, i.e.

Agreement bearing No.22/SE-6/2009, dated 20.01.2009 also came to be referred to the very same arbitrator on account of joint submissions of learned counsels, who prayed that the second arbitration be also referred to the same arbitrator, i.e. Mr. J.K. Pant, Retd. Chief Engineer, P.W.D.

4. It is the case of the applicant that the earlier award came to passed in 2021, but thereafter, in view of the raging pandemic, caused by the corona virus, the arbitrator refused to entertain or meet people, and thereby, the time limit specified under Section 29A of the Act came to lapse and the appointment came to be terminated in terms of Section 29A.

5. Aggrieved by the same, the instant miscellaneous application is preferred invoking the provisions of Section 29 of the Act and praying this Court to appoint a new arbitrator by replacing the earlier arbitrator, who refused to enter upon the reference and pass an Award.

6. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for the State- respondents would stoutly object the same and would submit that the instant application is not maintainable and that the applicant is not entitled to invoke the provisions of Section 29A(5) and that he should be driven to invoke the provisions of Section

11(6) of the Act.

7. The submission, in the considered opinion of the court, is in the teeth of the provisions of sub-section (5) of Section 29A of the Act. It is pertinent to extract the provisions of Section 29A for the sake of convenience, which reads as under:-