AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
SUVIR SEHGAL, J.(ORAL)
Petitioner has approached this Court, inter alia, for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing letter dated 02.03.2026, Annexure P1, issued by Municipal Council, Kaithal, respondent No.4, whereby Dog Sterilization & Catching tender work order has been cancelled.
The admitted case is that a work order was placed and an agreement dated 09.12.2025 was entered into between the petitioner and respondent No.4. Clause 17 of the agreement provides for resolution of dispute through the medium of arbitration. The said clause is reproduced hereunder:
“17. Arbitration Clause
In case of disputes or differences arising out of or in connection with this contract, the matter shall be referred to the sole Arbitrator, i.e. the District Municipal Commissioner, Kaithal, or any other officer authorized by him. The decision of the Arbitrator shall be final and binding. Arbitration proceedings shall be governed by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the venue shall be Kaithal. No objection shall be raised regarding the prior involvement of the Arbitrator in the subject matter.”
A similar condition appears in Clause 20 of the work order, Annexure P2. A perusal of the above reproduced condition shows that it provides for the reference of any dispute or differences between the parties pertaining to the contract to the District Municipal Commissioner, Kaithal or any official authorised by him to act as an arbitrator.
A serving official of the Municipal Council or his nominee cannot be nominated as an Arbitrator in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Perkins Eastman Architects DPC and Another Versus HSCC (India) Limited, (2020) 20 SCC 760. In view thereof, both the parties were given an opportunity on the previous date of hearing to give their consent regarding appointment of an independent Arbitrator.
Petitioner, who is present in person, does not have any objection, if the matter is referred for resolution to such an Arbitrator. Ms. Svaneel Jaswal, counsel for respondents No.2 to 4 is not in a position to dispute the arbitration clause.
For the aforesaid reasons, Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate, resident of House No.2461, Sector 23-C, Chandigarh, M: 9814104423, is nominated to act as an Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties, subject to compliance of statutory requirements.
Parties are directed to appear before the learned Arbitrator on the date, time and place to be fixed and communicated by the learned Arbitrator at his convenience.
Arbitrator shall be paid fee in accordance with the Fourth Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as amended.
Arbitrator shall hold the proceedings at Chandigarh or Kaithal, subject to the consent of the parties. He is requested to complete the proceedings as per time limit specified under the Act.
Parties will be at liberty to raise all the pleas/defences before the Arbitrator.
Needless to mention that all the questions arising between the parties in this matter will remain open for determination in the arbitration proceedings, and any observation made hereinabove will not be binding on the learned Arbitrator.
A request letter be sent to the nominated Arbitrator alongwith a copy of this order.