Himachal Pradesh High Court
Jagdish Chand Gupta vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Another on 8 August, 2025
( 2025:HHC:26993 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA
Arb. Case no. 429 of 2024
Decided on: 08.08.2025
____________________________________________________
.
Jagdish Chand Gupta ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and another
...Respondents
_____________________________________________________
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice
Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the Petitioner: r Mr. Sumeet Raj Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr.Arsh Rattan, Deputy Advocate
General.
G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral)
This application has been filed under Section 11 (6)
of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short “the Act’)
for appointment of Arbitrator.
2. The agreement as such bearing No.56 was entered
into between the parties for construction of ‘Pre-stressed Box
Cantilever Bridge (71.00 mtrs. Clear span) over Binwa Khad on
Balh Bajuri (Dandhole) to Jamthala Lad Bharol road
inkm.10/495 (Under NABARD RIDF-XV)’.
3. The work was awarded on 21.06.2016 for an
1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on – 11/08/2025 21:25:41 :::CIS
-2-
amount of Rs.6,25,00,000/- and had to be completed within two
years. Under Clause 65 of the agreement, all disputes were to
be referred to the sole arbitrator.
.
4. It has been pleaded that the drawings as such were
given and the machinery had been rendered idle due to non-
availability of the approach road. The length of bridge had been
increased from 71.00 mtrs to 95.00 meters and a demand had
been raised for payment of additional length of the bridge
alongwith release of escalation refund of difference between
VAT and GST and also compensation for prolongation and loss
of profitability.
5. Necessary notice dated 21.12.2023 (Annexure P-3)
had been served upon the respondents, which has not been
responded to by the respondents, leading to filing of the
present petition.
6. The stand of the respondents-State as such is to the
extent that the penalty for the delay as imposed was waived off
by the Superintending Engineer, 5th Circle, HPPWD on
10.03.2021. Allegations regarding change of specification and
increase in length of bridge are contested and stated to be not
based on the fact being lump-sum contract. The claim of extra
::: Downloaded on – 11/08/2025 21:25:41 :::CIS
-3-
payment was refuted as such on the ground that the
Department had submitted the drawings of upper part of the
abutment, which is related to bear the cantilever span of the
.
bridge, which transfers the load of the bridge span over to the
abutment.
7. It is also to be noticed that the drawings were
issued part wise to the contractor at different periods of time as
per requirement as per meeting on 02.02.2021.
8. Supplementary affidavit has also been filed by the
State and the stand is the same that the drawings were issued
part wise to the contractor at different periods of time as per
requirement. It has been stated that the reply to notice given by
the petitioner has not been placed on record and a reference
was made to communication dated 04.03.2024 (Annexure R-2)
to point out the defence in sum and substance and also that
the contents of Clause 25 of the contract agreement does not
contain the arbitration clause.
9. A perusal of the agreement would go on to show
that the Clause of arbitration as such is under Clause 65 and
therefore the defence as such of the State is baseless and
once the parties is agreed as per contract to refer the matter to
::: Downloaded on – 11/08/2025 21:25:41 :::CIS
-4-
arbitration, this Court is of the considered opinion that having
agreed as such to the mode of settlement of dispute they are
bound as such by the terms of the contract.
.
10. Keeping in view the above position, I am of the
considered opinion that the matter can only be resolved by
appointment of an Arbitrator. Accordingly, the application is
allowed and Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.S Walia, former Judge
Punjab and Haryana High Court R/o House No.1143, Sector
8C, Chandigarh
r (Telephone No.98140-06691) (email:
[email protected]) 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.
11. On his giving consent to arbitrate the dispute
between the parties as an Arbitrator, Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.S
Walia, former Judge, Punjab and Haryana High Court, shall
enter into reference, and shall pass an award in accordance
with law.
12. Copy of this order be furnished to the learned
counsel for the parties and also be furnished to the learned
::: Downloaded on – 11/08/2025 21:25:41 :::CIS
-5-
Arbitrator. The learned Arbitrator so appointed shall be entitled
to fee as per stipulation contained in 4th Schedule appended to
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
.
13. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of
accordingly.
( G.S. Sandhawalia )
Chief Justice
8th August, 2025
(priti)
::: Downloaded on – 11/08/2025 21:25:41 :::CIS