Allowed

M/S H.G. Infra Engineering Limited, v. Chief Regional Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited

Rajasthan HC3 Jul 2025ARBAP/110/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an arbitrator to resolve a dispute regarding unpaid claims under an insurance policy. Court held that the dispute falls within the arbitration clause and rejected the respondent's objection regarding lack of mediation. Application allowed; arbitrator appointed.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shri R. S. Chouhan (Retd. CJI, Uttarakhand High Court) as Sole Arbitrator.

M/S H.G. Infra Engineering Limited, Vs Chief Regional Manager… — Insurance | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:24560]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Arbitration Application No. 110/2024

¶4

M/s H.g. Infra Engineering Limited, Limited Having Its Corporate Office At 3Rd Floor, Sheel Mohar Plaza, A-1, Tilak Marg, C- Scheme, Jaipur-302001, Through Its Authorized Representative Sh. Anshul Khatri.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Chief Regional Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited, 1St Floor, A Wing, Tirupati Plaza, Near Collector Office, Athwa Gate, Surat-395001

¶8

Manager, 204, Trinity Business Park, L.p. Savani Road, Adajan, Surat 395009

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.D. K. Mishra with
	Mr.B. K. Sharma &
	Mr.Kartik Agarwal
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.Rishipal Agarwal

¶11

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶12

Order

¶13

03/07/2025

¶14

The instant arbitration application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as, “the Act of 1996”) has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to appoint Arbitrator to adjudicate/resolve the dispute pending between the parties.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an Insurance Policy was taken by the petitioner on 04.08.2017 which was valid till 03.08.2019. Counsel submits that the respondents have failed to comply with the terms of the Insurance Policy, hence, a dispute has occurred between the parties. Counsel submits that the

[2025:RJ-JP:24560]

[ARBAP-110/2024]

(2 of 5)

matter be referred to the Arbitrator for settlement of dispute in terms of Clause-7 of the Insurance Policy.

¶20

For ready reference, Clause-7 of the General Conditions is reproduced as under:-

¶21

“If any dispute or difference shall arise as to the quantum to be paid under this policy (liability being otherwise admitted) such difference shall independently of all other questions be referred to the decision of a sole arbitrator, to be appointed in writing by the parties to or, if they cannot agree upon a single arbitrator within 30 days of any party invoking Arbitration, the same shall be referred to a panel of three Arbitrators comprising of two Arbitrators – one to be appointed by each of the parties to the dispute/difference, and the third Arbitrator to be appointed by such two Arbitrators and arbitration shall be conducted under and in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

¶22

It is clearly agreed and understood that no difference or dispute shall be referable to arbitration as hereinbefore provided, if the Company has disputed or not accepted liability under or in respect of this Policy.

¶23

It is hereby expressly stipulated and declared that it shall be a condition precedent to any right of action or suit upon this Policy that the award by such Arbitrator/Arbitrators of the amount of the loss or damage shall be first obtained.”

¶24

Learned counsel for the respondents opposes the prayer and submits that due amount of the petitioner has already been paid

[2025:RJ-JP:24560]

[ARBAP-110/2024]

(3 of 5)

and he is not entitled to claim the balance amount. Counsel submits that the instant arbitration application seeking appointment of Arbitrator is not maintainable, as no prayer has been made in relation to settlement of dispute through mediation, hence, this application is liable to be rejected.

¶29

Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 6. Perusal of the record indicates that an Insurance Policy was taken by the petitioner and certain amount was paid to the petitioner by the respondents towards his claim, whereas rest of the amount was not paid. Face with this, the petitioner approached this Court, by way of filing the application for settlement of dispute through Arbitrator in terms of Clause-7 of the Insurance Policy. Whether the petitioner has received the sufficient amount or not or whether the petitioner is entitled to get additional amount or not, all these questions are required to be adjudicated by the Arbitrator. This Court finds no substance in the objection taken by the respondents that before filing the instant application, no efforts were made by the petitioner for settlement of dispute through mediation, as no such condition is there in the policy and the policy reflects the mode of dispute resolution through arbitration only.

¶30

Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, the instant application stands allowed. In the facts and circumstances, this Court deems it just and proper to appoint Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shri R. S. Chouhan, (Former Chief Justice, Uttarakhand High Court) resident of C-148, Dayanand Marg, Tilak

[2025:RJ-JP:24560]

[ARBAP-110/2024]

(4 of 5)

Nagar, Jaipur-302004 as Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate/resolve the dispute between the parties.

¶35

The appointment of the Sole Arbitrator is subject to declaration being made under Section 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act of 1996') with respect to the independence and impartiality and ability to devote sufficient time to complete the arbitration proceedings within the prescribed period.

¶36

The arbitration fee of the Sole Arbitrator shall be payable in accordance with the provisions contained in the Manual of Procedure of Alternative Dispute Resolution, 2009, as amended by the Manual of Procedure for Alternative Dispute Resolution (Amendment), 2017 vide notification dated 23.03.2017 read with 4^th schedule appended to the Act of 1996 or as determined by the Arbitrator with consensus of the parties.

¶37

The Registry is directed to intimate the sole ArbitratorHon’ble Mr. Justice Shri R. S. Chouhan, (Former Chief Justice, Uttarakhand High Court) resident of C-148, Dayanand Marg, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur-302004 for his approval and declaration, in terms of Section 11(8) read with Section 12(1) of the Act of 1996. 11. All issues raised by the parties before the Arbitrator shall be considered in accordance with law.

¶38

Since, as per Section 29A of the Act of 1996, the arbitration proceedings are required to be concluded within the scheduled time, as stipulated therein, it is expected from the parties to appear before the Arbitrator on 28.07.2025 or on any other date as informed by the Arbitrator, subject to agreement by the parties. Furthermore, the parties shall provide their respective E-mail/

[2025:RJ-JP:24560]

[ARBAP-110/2024]

(5 of 5)

contact number/ mobile number and/or also of their authorized representatives/ Lawyers appearing on their behalf before the Arbitral Tribunal, in order to facilitate the Arbitrator to send information/communication to the parties, whenever required. The information send by the Arbitrator, on such address/ E-mail/ cellphone of the parties or to their authorized representatives/ Lawyers, shall be treated as sufficient communication unless same is not changed.

¶43

Accordingly, the present arbitration application stands disposed of.

¶44

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶45

Aayush Sharma /198

M/S H.G. Infra Engineering Limited, v. Chief Regional Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S H.G. Infra Engineering Limited, v. Chief Regional Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Maa Jwala College of Education Vs the State of Rajasthan

Surajmal Said Adopted Son of Richpal Vs Santosh S/O Badri

Gopal Das S/O Shri Gulab Chand Naredi, Vs Smt. Kanta Devi Sabu W/O Shri Gordhandas Sabu

M/S Khandelwal Traders Vs Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Ltd. (Riico)

Dadhich Finserv Private Limited Vs Sukhvinder Kaur W/O Trilok Singh

Pooran Mal Saini S/O Omkar Mal Saini Vs the State of Rajasthan