IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND

AT NAINITAL

SRI JUSTICE S.K. MISHRA, A.C.J.

24^th JUNE, 2022

ARBITRATION APPLICATION No. 11 OF 2021

Between:

M/S Mathiyan Construction (Pvt.) Ltd.

…Petitioner

and

State of Uttarakhand and others.

…Respondents

Counsel for the petitioner.

: Mr.

Pankaj

Purohit,

the

learned

counsel.

Counsel for the respondents.

: Mr. B.S. Parihar, the learned Standing

Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.

Upon hearing the learned Counsel, the Court made

the following

JUDGMENT :

In this application, filed under sub-section (6)

of Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,

1996 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’, for brevity),

the applicant has prayed for appointment of an

Arbitrator to resolve the controversy involved in the

case.

2.

Mr. Pankaj Purohit, the learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner, would draw the attention of

this Court to Clause 19 appearing at Page No. 21 of the

brief, and would submit that there is an arbitration

clause. It is appropriate to take note of the exact words

used therein. Clause 19 reads as follows :-

“19. Settlement of Dipsutes.

Any dispute or differance between the Ex.

Engineer and line contractor as to the rights or

liabilities of the parties here to as to any matter or

thing whatsoever arising under his contractor or

concerning, is constive on wheather such dispute, or

differance arises during the continuance of this

contractor or after its datermination by completion or

breach or otherwise how so ever shall in the first

instance be reffered to the Sup Engineer who shall

give his written decision thereon. Such written

decision shall be final and binding on the parties

unless the contractor within 14 days of the receipt

there of gives the Ex.Engineer notice in writing object

to such decision in which case and in any case in

which the Sup. Engineer fails to give a writtan

decision within 21 days after receipt or notice in

writing given to him by the contractor requiring his

decisionsuch dispute or differance shall be referred to

an arbitrator agreed upon by both the parties or

failing such agreement to an arbitrator appointed by

the .................... and in either case the decision of

the arbitrator (including his decision as or to eosis)

shall be final and binding on both the parties and the

cost of arbitration shall be born by the parties in such

manner as the arbitrator may decide.

If any such dispute arises in consequence of an

act of God or Civil commission and is referred to

arbitration under the provision of this clause the

arbitrator shall decide whether this contract shall

continue or shall be datermined and shall in either

case datermine the terms and conditions attendant on

such continution or datermution.”

3.

It is not disputed by Mr. B.S. Parihar, the

learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand,

that there is an arbitration clause.

4.

The

learned

counsel

for

the

petitioner,

therefore, submits that the sole Arbitrator may be

2

appointed to resolve the disputes between the parties.

The learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the

learned

counsel

for

the

respondent

agree

for

appointment of Mr. Justice Lok Pal Singh, Retd. Judge of

this Court, R/o H.N. 415-A, Lane no.-3, Arya Nagar,

P.O.- Arya Vanprastha Ashram, Jwalapur, Haridwar-

249407, as an Arbitrator.

5.

As both the learned counsel are in agreement

for appointment of Mr. Justice Lok Pal Singh, Retd.

Judge of this Court, R/o H.N. 415-A, Lane no.-3, Arya

Nagar,

P.O.-

Arya

Vanprastha

Ashram,

Jwalapur,

Haridwar-249407, as an Arbitrator, this Court disposes

of this application by appointing Mr. Justice Lok Pal

Singh, Retd. Judge of this Court, R/o H.N. 415-A, Lane

no.-3, Arya Nagar, P.O.- Arya Vanprastha Ashram,

Jwalapur, Haridwar-249407, to act as an Arbitrat