Disposed¶19

M/S Kamal and Associates Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Authorized Person Shri Rahul Sharma v. The Chief Engineer, C.P.W.D. (Lucknow) and Anr.

Allahabad HC23 Feb 2026ARBT/9/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench; Civil Misc. Arbitration Application No. 9 of 2026; decided February 23, 2026 by Subhash Vidyarthi, J. Section 11(6) Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996; appointment of arbitrator; CPWD contract dated 30.03.2021; Clause 25 arbitration clause; Disputes Redressal Committee (DRC) constitution not in accordance with agreement schedule; Standing Committee constituted 12.12.2025; notice issued; Kushagra Dikshit for applicant; M/S Kamal And Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Chief Engineer, C.P.W.D. (Lucknow).

What did the court decide?

Notice issued to the opposite parties, returnable at an early date; learned counsel for the applicant directed to take steps within one week; matter to be listed immediately after service of notice ¶19

M/S Kamal and Associates Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Authorized Person… — Arbitration | Allahabad HC (2026)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CIVIL MISC. ARBITRATION APPLICATION No. - 9 of 2026

¶3

M/S Kamal And Associates Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Authorized Person Shri Rahul Sharma

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

The Chief Engineer, C.P.W.D. (Lucknow) And Anr.

¶7

.....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Kushagra Dikshit Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :

¶8

Court No. - 17

¶9

HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

¶10

Heard Shri Kushagra Dikshit, the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶11

By means of the instant application filed under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the applicant has sought appointment of an arbitrator for adjudication of the dispute arising out of contract dated 30.03.2021. Clause 25 of the agreement contains an arbitration clause which provides that any dispute will first be submitted to a Disputes redressal Committee within 15 days from the date of demand.

¶12

The composition of the Disputes redressal Committee has to be chaired by CE cum ED, Project Varanasi, CPWD, Varanasi, members of the Committee are- SE cum PD, PMGS, CPWD, Uttrakhand and SE cum PD, GPOA, Patia, DPWD, Deharadun.

¶13

The applicant sent a letter dated 28.05.2025 to the opposite party raising its claim and requesting an amicable and equitable resolution of the issues arising between the parties. The applicant again reiterated the request through another letter dated 26.06.2025 and 30.10.2025. On 12.12.2025, the opposite party communicated constitution of a Standing Committee for Disputes Redressal consisting of Chief Engineer, Ghaziabad as Chairperson, SE (Works cum TLQA) O/o ADG (Lucknow) as member Secretary and Superintending Engineer (Agra) as its member.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the Committee has not been constituted within a period of 15 days stipulated in the agreement and its

¶15

ARBT No. 9 of 2026

¶16

¶17

constitution is not as per the schedule appended to the agreement which contemplates the DRC to be chaired by CE cum ED, Project Varanasi, CPWD, Varanasi, members of the Committee are- SE cum PD, PMGS, CPWD, Uttrakhand and SE cum PD, GPOA, Patia, DPWD, Deharadun

¶18

Therefore, the petitioner did not participate in the proceedings before DRC and he seeks appointment of an arbitrator.

¶19

Issue notice to the opposite parties, returnable at an early date.

¶20

Learned counsel for the applicant shall take steps within one week.

¶21

List immediately after service of notice.

¶22

February 23, 2026 -Amit K-

¶23

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶24

Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

M/S Kamal and Associates Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Authorized Person Shri Rahul Sharma v. The Chief Engineer, C.P.W.D. (Lucknow) and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Kamal and Associates Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Authorized Person Shri Rahul Sharma v. The Chief Engineer, C.P.W.D. (Lucknow) and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Jay Harmesh Alias Jay Harmesh Gandharv vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Medical Education and Training) and 5 Others

M/S Guru Kripa Construction and Suppliers Work Thru. Prop. Mr Krishna Kumar Verma vs the Superintendent of Police, Barabanki

Uttar Pradesh Rajya Upbhokta Sahkari Sangh Limited Thru. Sabhapati/Adhyaksha and Another vs Appellate Authority/Joint Secretrary, Cooperative Department Civil Secretariat Lko. and Another

Rais vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 3 Others

Kesar Jahan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Food and Civil Supply Lko. and 2 Others

Smt. Kiran Rastogi vs Ramesh Kumar