Allowed¶12

Kapil Construction v. the Executive Engineer Shimla DIVISION-1 Hppwd

Himachal Pradesh HC19 Jul 2024ARB.C/561/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Termination of arbitrator's mandate; employee of respondent-State disqualified as arbitrator; Section 12 amendment inserting Schedule 7; Clause 1 of Fifth Schedule; justifiable doubts as to independence or impartiality; Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; unilateral appointment by respondent in proceedings dt. 21.6.2014; HPPWD; Executive Engineer, Shimla; Arb. Case No. 561 of 2024; High Court of Himachal Pradesh; M.S. Ramachandra Rao, Chief Justice; costs Rs. 5,000/-.

What did the court decide?

Termination of the arbitrator's mandate forthwith; respondent directed to pay costs of Rs. 5,000/- to the applicant. ¶12

Kapil Construction Vs the Executive Engineer Shimla… — Arbitration | Himachal Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

2024:HHC:5697

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

Arb. C Decid	ase No.561 of 2024 ed on: 19.07.2024
Kapil Constrcution Versus The Executive Engineer, Shimla	...Applicant ...Respondent
Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.S. Ramachandra	Rao, Chief Justice
_Whether approvedfor reporting? _
For the applicant: Mr. Suneet Goel, Adv	ocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Arsh Rattan, General.	Deputy Advocate
M.S. Ramachandra Rao, Chief Justice (Oral)

¶4

This application is filed under Sections 14 and 15 of

¶5

the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, “the Act”) by the applicant seeking termination of the mandate of Superintending Engineer, Arbitration Circle, HPPWD, Solan, who had been appointed as Arbitrator by the respondent in the proceedings dt. 21.6.2014.

¶6

Section 12 of the Act has since been amended and Schedule 7 has been inserted in the said Schedule which disqualifies persons for appointment as Arbitrator who are employees or other persons having relationship with the parties and

¶7

¶8

in spite of the said amendment having come into operation, Superintending Engineer, Arbitration Circle, HPPWD, Solan, is continuing as an Arbitrator.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant contends that in view of Clause 1 of the 5^th Schedule there would be a justifiable doubts as to the independence or impartiality of the said Arbitrator once he is an employee of the respondent.

¶10

Though, the respondent has disputed the contention of the applicant, it is not the case of the respondent that the Arbitrator is not an employee of the State Government which is the party to the arbitration agreement.

¶11

Having regard to the specific bar contained in Clause 1 of the 5^th Schedule read with Section 12 of the Act, this application is allowed and mandate of Chief Engineer, South Zone, HPPWD, Shimla to act as Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between

¶12

the parties is terminated forthwith. The respondent shall pay costs of Rs.5,000/- to the applicant.

¶13

( M.S. Ramachandra Rao ) Chief Justice

¶14

July 19, 2024 (vt)

Kapil Construction v. the Executive Engineer Shimla DIVISION-1 Hppwd

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kapil Construction v. the Executive Engineer Shimla DIVISION-1 Hppwd

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhupinder Pal Mahajan Vs State of Hp and Another

Manish Verma Vs State of Hp and Another

M/s Dogra Construction Company Private Limited Vs State of Hp and Anr.

Jeewan Kumar @ Jeewan Singh and Others Vs Seeta Ram and Others

Vineet Sharma Vs State of Hp and Another

Shyam Verma Vs Randeep and Others