Contractor sought appointment of arbitrator over unpaid dues under a 2011 construction agreement with State of U.P.; prior writ and SLP left remedies open. Court issued notice to respondents and listed the arbitration application for further hearing.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 6
Case :- CIVIL MISC. ARBITRATION APPLICATION No. - 72 of 2024
Applicant :- M/S Balaji Construction Thru Its Partner Abha Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Irrigation Deptt. Lucknow And Ors. Counsel for Applicant :- Prasiddha Narayan Singh
Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.
Sri Prasiddha Narayan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the parties have entered into an agreement for construction on 24.03.2011. The work was completed but the payments were not made therefore the applicant approached this Court by means of Writ Petition Misc. Bench No.10808 of 2013(M/s Balaji Construction versus State of U.P.). The writ petition was disposed of by means of the order dated 03.01.2024 with a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner in accordance with law and pay whatever amount is found payable to them. It was further observed that admitted dues should be paid to the petitioner. The said order was not complied therefore the applicant moved contempt petition before this Court. During pendency of the contempt petition, the claim of the applicant was rejected by means of the order dated 12.05.2014 by the respondent no.4. The contempt petition of the applicant was disposed of on 02.11.2017. The applicant approached to the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing SLP No.12251 of 2018. During pendency of the appeal, Rs.42 lakhs were paid to the applicant. The SLP was disposed of by means of the order dated 27.03.2023 observing that the petitioner would submit that his Rs.57 lakhs is due and as far as any amount remaining as due according to the petitioner, it is for the petitioner to work out its remedies as available under law. Therefore in terms of Clause 34(3) of the agreement, the applicant gave a notice dated 17.08.2023 for appointment of arbitrator but there is no response to the same. Therefore the applicant is constrained to approach this Court.
The matter requires consideration.
Issue notice.
Steps to be taken within a week.
List with service report on the date fixed in the notice.
Order Date :- 28.8.2024 Akanksha Sri.
Digitally signed by :- AKANKSHA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the court should issue notice on an application for appointment of arbitrator under the construction agreement after no response to the applicant's notice dated 17.08.2023.
M/S Balaji Construction Thru Its Partner Abha Singh
State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Irrigation Deptt. Lucknow And Ors.
Rajnish Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
3 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
