The Uttarakhand High Court applied the ruling of the Apex Court in Perkins Eastman Architects DPC and another vs. HSCC (India) Limited (2020) whereby the concept of named Arbitrator, who himself is an interested party, has been held to be no more sustainable.

The High Court was considering an Application whereby the applicancts sought for the appointment of an Arbitrator de-hors the stipulation in Clause 28.0, wherein it was agreed that either the Principal Secretary/Secretary, Department of Energy, Government of Uttarakhand, Dehradun or any person nominated by him would be entitled to act as the sole arbitrator.

The Single-Judge Bench of Chief Justice G. Narendar said, “...the law, as declared by the Coordinate Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court, continues to hold the field.”

Advocate B.D. Pande represented the Appellants while Standing Counsel B.S. Parihar represented the Respondents.

Factual Background

The applicants, in this case, were awarded a contract and an Agreement came to be executed between the parties for the construction and renovation of the Jummagad Small Hydro Project on turnkey basis. As per the applicants, the execution of the Project came to be delayed due to climatic and geological conditions and lackadaisical approach of the respondent-Department. The respondents terminated the contract apparently on account of the failure of the applicants to complete the execution within the agreed period. The termination of the contract was the cause for demand for arbitration.

Arguments

The applicants placed reliance on the ruling rendered in Perkins Eastman Architects Case (Supra) to contend that in the light of the law declared by the Apex Court, the concept of named arbitrator, who himself is a interested party, is no more sustainable. It was also contended that Clause 28.0 cannot be put against them and that the same is no more binding given the law declared by the Apex Court.

The Respondents, on the other hand, placed reliance on the ruling of the Apex Court rendered in S.P. Singla Constructions Private Limited vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another (2019).

Reasoning

On a perusal of the submissions and the findings of the Apex Court, the Bench held, “The law declared by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Perkins Eastman Architects DPC (supra) is subsequent to the pronouncement in S.P. Singla Constructions Private Limited (supra).”

The High Court thus held that the law declared by the Coordinate Bench of the Apex Court continues to hold the field.

Finding no merit in the contention canvassed by the respondents, the Bench allowed the Application. It was further noticed that on the query, both the Counsels suggested that the dispute may be referred for arbitration by appointing Sri B.S. Verma, a retired Judge of this High Court as the sole arbitrator.

“Mr. Justice B.S. Verma (Retired) is, hereby, appointed to act as an Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute that have arisen between the parties”, the Bench ordered.

Cause Title: M/s SPDD VDPPL JV and another v. State of Uttarakhand and others (Neutral Citation: 2025:UHC:24)

Appearance:

Applicants: Advocates B.D. Pande, Rajesh Sharma

Respondents: Standing Counsel B.S. Parihar, Brief Holder Rajni Supyal, Advocate Rohit Arora

Click here to read/download Order


Uttarakhand High CourtChief Justice G NarendarArbitration and Conciliation ActArbitrator

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.