Rajeev Kumar Goel v. State of Haryana & Others
Case brief
What is this about?
Application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an arbitrator. The High Court appointed a retired Judge as sole arbitrator despite the respondent having appointed an employee as arbitrator to ensure independence.
What did the court decide?
Appointed Mr. Justice Mahesh Grover, a retired Judge of this Court, as sole arbitrator to settle the disputes between the parties.
What the court decided
I N THE HI GH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDI GARH
Ar bi t r at i on Case No. 140 of 2018 ( O&M) DATE OF DECI SI ON: 13. 09. 2019
Raj eev Kumar Goel …. . Appl i cant ver sus
St at e of Har yana and ot her s . . . . . Respondent s
CORAM: - HON' BLE MR. JUSTI CE KRI SHNA MURARI , CHI EF JUSTI CE
Pr esent : Shr i P. S. Rana, Advocat e f or t he appl i cant Mr . Deepak Bal yan, Addl . Advocat e Gener al , Har yana
KRI SHNA MURARI , CHI EF JUSTI CE ( Or al ) :
Thi s i s an appl i cat i on under sect i on 11( 6) of t he Ar bi t r at i on and Conci l i at i on Act , 1996, f or appoi nt ment of an Ar bi t r at or .
A wr i t t en st at ement has been f i l ed on behal f of t he r espondent s st at i ng t hat t hey have appoi nt ed t he Super i nt endi ng Engi neer , Publ i c Heal t h Engi neer i ng Ci r cl e Nar naul , as an Ar bi t r at or on 09. 04. 2018 t o r esol ve t he di sput es bet ween t he par t i es.
Lear ned counsel f or t he appl i cant / pet i t i oner cont ends t hat i n vi ew of amendment i ncor por at ed i n sub- sect i on ( 5) of sect i on 12 of t he Act wi t h ef f ect f r om 23. 10. 2015 t he empl oyee of t he r espondent cannot be appoi nt ed as an Ar bi t r at or .
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an employee of the respondent state can be appointed as an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Whether an independent arbitrator needs to be appointed if the respondent has already appointed their own employee as arbitrator.
Whether the amendment incorporated in subsection (5) of Section 12 applies to disputes pending as of the effective date.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Rajeev Kumar Goel
- respondent
State of Haryana
Coram
Krishna Murari
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Punjab & Haryana HC
- Decided on
- · September
- Registered
- Case no.
- ARB/140/2018
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court