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 fo