Chenab Valley Leasing Ltd. Vs State of Hp and Another — Arbitration | Himachal Pradesh HC (2024)

Chenab Valley Leasing Ltd. Vs State of Hp and Another — Arbitration | Himachal Pradesh HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Application allowed: mandate of the Secretary (Law), Government of Himachal Pradesh, as sole Arbitrator terminated; Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, former Judge, Punjab and Haryana High Court, appointed Arbitrator subject to written disclosure in terms of Section 11(8) and his consent; arbitrator’s fee as per stipulation in the 4th Schedule to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; pending applications, if any, disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the mandate of the Secretary (Law), Government of Himachal Pradesh, appointed as sole Arbitrator, should be terminated under Section 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. +1 more

Court's answer

The application is allowed and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, former Judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court, is appointed as Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties.

Ratio / Principle

The grounds for allowing the application were the mandate of law in Section 12(5) of the Act, and that the arbitration had not progressed much from 2015 till date, defeating the very purpose of such a remedy.

Key takeaways

The newly appointed Arbitrator’s appointment comes into force only after his written disclosure is obtained in terms of Section 11(8) of the Act.ratio¶17
On giving consent to arbitrate, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, Judge (Retd.), shall enter into reference and pass an award in accordance with law.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Ss. 12(5), 15, 11(8), Fourth Schedule — Application under S.15 by Chenab Valley Leasing Limited to terminate the mandate of the Secretary (Law), Government of Himachal Pradesh, appointed sole Arbitrator for the dispute arising out of MoU dt.13.06.2002 — applicant contended that, u/s 12(5) as introduced by Act 3 of 2016, the Secretary (Law) stood disqualified in a dispute to which the Government of Himachal Pradesh is a party, and that no progress had occurred in the arbitration between 2020 and the date of filing — Court allowed the application, having regard to the mandate of law in Section 12(5) and to the fact that the arbitration had not progressed much from 2015, defeating the very purpose of the remedy — Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, former Judge, Punjab and Haryana High Court, appointed Arbitrator; appointment effective only after written disclosure in terms of Section 11(8) and his consent; on consent he is to enter into reference and pass an award in accordance with law — fee as per stipulation in the 4th Schedule — pending applications disposed of. Decided 15.06.2024 by the Chief Justice sitting singly.

2024:HHC:3545

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA

Arbitration Case No. 410 of 2024 Decided on: 15^th June, 2024

____________________________________________________ Chenab Valley Leasing Limited ….Applicant. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another …..Respondents. _______________________________________________________ Coram_ Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao, Chief Justice

Whether approved for reporting?¹

For the Applicant: Mr. Suneet Goel, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Arsh Rattan, Deputy Advocate General for respondent no.1. Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, Advocate, for respondent no.2.

M.S. Ramachandra Rao, Chief Justice (oral)

Heard both sides.

The learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for 1^st respondent adopts the reply filed by the 2^nd respondent.

This application has been filed by the applicant u/s 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short “the Act”) to terminate the mandate of the Secretary (Law), Government of

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2 -

Himachal Pradesh, who was appointed as a sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties arising out of MoU dt.13.06.2002. The applicant contends that no progress has happened in the arbitration between 2020 till date.

Learned counsel for the applicant further contends that u/s 12(5)

of the Act as introduced by the Act 3 of 2016, the Secretary (Law) is disqualified from acting as Arbitrator in a dispute to which the Government of Himachal Pradesh is a party.

A reply is filed by the 2^nd respondent opposing this application.

Having regard to the mandate of law in Section 12(5) of the Act and also having regard to the fact that the arbitration has not progressed much from 2015 till date, defeating the very purpose of such a remedy, the application is allowed and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tejinder Singh Dhindsa , former Judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court, R/o House No. 123, Sector 8, Chandigarh, is appointed as an Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties, after his disclosure in writing is obtained in terms of Section 11(8) of the Act and only after receipt thereof, his appointment, as an Arbitrator, shall come into force.

1. On his giving consent to arbitrate the dispute between the

3 -

parties as an Arbitrator, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tejinder Singh Dhindsa , Judge (Retd.), shall enter into reference, and shall pass an award in accordance with law.

Copy of this order be furnished to the learned counsel for the parties and also furnished to the learned Arbitrator. The learned Arbitrator so appointed shall be entitled to fee as per stipulation contained in 4^th Schedule appended to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The application is disposed of accordingly.

1. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

( M.S. Ramachandra Rao ) Chief Justice

15^th June, 2024 (priti)