MS LORD SHIVA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PVT LTD vs STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS — ARB/598/2025

Case under Arbitration and Conciliation Act Section 11. Disposed: --DISPOSED OF on 15th May 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 01-Oct-2025

CNR: PHHC011606132025

e-Filing Number

29-09-2025

Filing Number

ARB/62595/2025

Filing Date

29-Sep-2025

Registration No

ARB/598/2025

Registration Date

29-Sep-2025

Judge

The Chief Justice

Coram

The Chief Justice

Bench Type

Single

Category

69.3 - ARBITRATION U/S 11 (5 CRORE AND ABOVE) ( 937 )

Sub-Category

( 944 )

Judicial Branch

CIVIL REVISION BRANCH-I

Decision Date

15-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISPOSED OF

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Arbitration and Conciliation Act Section 11

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.MS LORD SHIVA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PVT LTD

    Adv. ANKIT GREWAL

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 15-May-2026

    The Chief JusticeView PDF

    Case Summary: ARB/598/2025 Lord Shiva Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana The High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed Lord Shiva Construction's application for appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The court rejected the State's objection that the contractor failed to deposit 2% of the claim amount as a mandatory pre-condition, holding that such technical requirements do not bar arbitrator appointment when the arbitration agreement is valid and disputes are arbitrable. Justice Rajesh Tandon (former Uttarakhand HC judge) was appointed as the respondent's nominee arbitrator, with the actual deposit requirement to be decided by the arbitrator itself. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 29-Sep-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. ARB/598/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: ARB/598/2025 Lord Shiva Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana The High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed Lord Shiva Construction's application for appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The court rejected the State's objection that the contractor failed to deposit 2% of the claim amount as a mandatory pre-condition, holding that such technical requirements do not bar arbitrator appointment when the arbitration agreement is valid and disputes are arbitrable. Justice Rajesh Tandon (former Uttarakhand HC judge) was appointed as the respondent's nominee arbitrator, with the actual deposit requirement to be decided by the arbitrator itself. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case