Himachal Pradesh High Court: A petition filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was allowed by a Single Judge Bench comprising of Vivek Singh Thakur, J.

The petition was filed for appointment of an arbitrator to adjudicate upon the claim of the petitioner against the respondents arising out of an agreement entered into between them for construction of link road. The respondents controverted the claim of the petitioners and filed counter allegations. The respondents submitted that the Superintending Engineer, Arbitration Circle, HPPWD, Solan was appointed as an arbitrator but it was not accepted by the petitioners.

After considering the record, the High Court observed that there was a dispute arising out of the agreement entered into between the parties. It was an undisputed fact that the said agreement contained an arbitration clause (Clause 25). However, the Court held that in light of Section 12 (5) of the Act, the appointment of the Superintending Engineer as an arbitrator was untenable. Thus, the petition was allowed and a retired Judge was appointed as an arbitrator to adjudicate upon the matter. [Tilak Raj v. Chief Engineer, 2018 SCC OnLine HP 563, dated 03-05-2018]

Must Watch

Right to choose life partner

Public and private space for obscenity

Obscenity Book Release of EBC

International Arbitration Dialogues

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.