Chandan Kumar Roy v. the General Manager (Engineering), Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi and Others
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Sections 11(6), 12(5), 12, 29-A and Fourth Schedule – Application for appointment of arbitrator
Case brief
What is this about?
ARB-121-2025, High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, decided 11.08.2025 by Jagmohan Bansal J (oral). Chandan Kumar Roy v. The General Manager (Engineering), Northern Railway and others — Section 11 application for appointment of arbitrator under a railway works contract containing an arbitration clause in the General Conditions of Contract. Unilateral appointment by the respondent held impermissible in view of Section 12(5) of the 1996 Act read with Central Organisation for Railway Electrification v. ECI SPIC SMO MCML (JV) A Joint Venture Co., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3219 (five-judge bench); Section 11(6) conditions satisfied; Mr. Justice K.C. Puri, Former Judge, appointed Sole Arbitrator; first appearance 25.08.2025; fee per Fourth Schedule; Section 29-A timeline; all claims/defences left open.
What did the court decide?
Application under Section 11 allowed; Mr. Justice K.C. Puri, Former Judge of this Court, appointed as Sole Arbitrator subject to compliance of statutory requirements; parties to appear before the Arbitrator on 25.08.2025 at 10:00 AM; arbitrator's fee per the Fourth Schedule of the 1996 Act, as amended; proceedings to be completed within the time limit under Section 29-A; parties at liberty to raise all claims/defences/counter claims/pleas, observations herein not binding on the arbitrator.