High CourtsSingle Bench(2010) 05 SHI CK 0018

Gurcharan Industries vs State of H.P. and Others

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh · Decided on 21 May 2010

HON’BLE JUDGES
Surjit Singh, J
CASE NUMBER
Arbitration Case No. 45 of 2008

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 336 words

Surjit Singh, J.—Petitioner has approached the Hon''ble Chief Justice for appointment of an Arbitrator, by making the present petition, u/s 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The matter has come before me, as I have been designated by the Hon''ble Chief Justice to exercise his powers, u/s 11 of the Act.

2.

Tenders were invited by the Respondents for executing certain work. Petitioner also submitted a tender, which was accepted, vide letter dated 1st December, 2001, Annexure C-2. Thereafter, Respondents did not cooperate with the Petitioner, nor did they do anything to facilitate the execution of the work by the Petitioner. Petitioner, therefore, claimed damages and requested the Respondents to refer his claim for damages to the Arbitrator. Respondents rejected the prayer of the Petitioner, for referring the matter to the Arbitrator, on the ground that there was no written agreement between the parties.

3.

A Division Bench of this Court in State of H.P. and Anr. v. H.K. Sareen OSA No. 27 of 1999, decided on 8th December, 2009, has held that where a tender submitted by a party is accepted by the party floating the tenders, acceptance of tender concludes the agreement and the tender and the letter of acceptance are the documents of such agreement. Therefore, objection raised by the Respondents that there was no completed agreement between the parties is not sustainable.

4.

Tender contains arbitration clause. In terms of the arbitration clause, the Arbitrator, in the event of a dispute between the parties, was to be appointed by the Engineer-in-Chief/Chief Engineer. They having failed to appoint an Arbitrator, despite demand by the Petitioner, on a ground, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law, the petition is allowed and Shri Ramakant Sharma, Advocate, is appointed as Arbitrator. His fees, inclusive of stationery and other charges, is fixed at Rs. 25,000/-, which shall initially be paid by the Petitioner and the matter regarding liability to pay such fees shall be finally determined by the Arbitrator himself.

Petition stands disposed of.