High CourtsDivision Bench(2017) 03 UK CK 0020

M/s Shakumbri Associates. vs State of Uttarakhand & others.

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 6 March 2017

HON’BLE JUDGES
V.K. Bist
RESULT
Disposed
CASE NUMBER
2291 of 2016

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

7 paragraphs · 395 words
1.

Present petition has been filed by the petitioner for a direction to the respondent no. 7/sole Arbitrator to decide the dispute expeditiously or within the time stipulated by this Court.

2.

On 29.09.2014, the respondent no. 7 was appointed as an Arbitrator by the U.P. Project Corporation for resolving the dispute assign out of work orders of Nagar Palika Parishad Kichha, Udam Singh Nagar. According to the petitioner, he has submitted his claim before the Arbitrator on 18.04.2015. It is alleged that, despite having submitted his claim on 18.04.2015, the sole Arbitrator has not resolved the dispute so far. Hence, this writ petition.

3.

Respondent no. 7 has filed the counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that, during the pendency of this writ petition, the respondent no. 7, in the capacity of the Arbitrator, issued a letter/notice dated 23.01.2017 to the petitioner to appear before him for the purpose of putting his claim; but, despite notice, he did

not turn up. It is also stated that the petitioner himself is not interested in the arbitration case, therefore, due to the fault of the petitioner himself, the arbitration proceedings have been lingered on. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that in case the petitioner cooperates, the Arbitrator will decide the arbitral proceedings within a period of one year. In the counter affidavit, the respondent no. 7 has prayed that one year''s time may be granted to him for finalizing the arbitral proceedings, subject to full cooperation of the petitioner.

4.

I have considered the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the papers available on record. Considering the dispute inter se the parties, the matter was referred for arbitration in the year 2014 and the respondent no. 7 was appointed as an Arbitrator on 29.09.2014 to resolve the dispute inter se the parties. About 30 months have elapsed; but the arbitral proceedings have not been concluded so far.

5.

In such circumstances, I dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondent no. 7 to complete the arbitration proceedings pertaining to the instant case expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months'' from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. Parties are directed to cooperate in the arbitral proceedings before the Arbitrator.

6.

All pending applications stand disposed of.