M/S WOODHILL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. ROHIT ARORA vs SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER1 ST CIRCLE P.W.D. ALMORA Advocate - C.S.C. — ARBAP/32/2025
Case under Under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act Section 11. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED on 22nd May 2026.
CNR: UKHC010064922025
Filing Number
ARBAP/3225/2025
Filing Date
07-05-2025
Registration No
ARBAP/32/2025
Registration Date
07-05-2025
Judge
Hon'ble Shri Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta
Coram
Hon'ble Shri Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
APPLICATIONS ( 5 )
Sub-Category
ARBITRATION APPLICATION(SECTION-11) ( 3 )
Judicial Branch
ALL SECTIONS (CIVIL AND CRIMINAL)
Decision Date
22nd May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISPOSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
M/S WOODHILL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. ROHIT ARORA
Respondent(s)
SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER1 ST CIRCLE P.W.D. ALMORA Advocate - C.S.C.
Hearing History
Judge: Hon'ble Shri Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta
FRESH CASES FOR ADMISSION -3
ADMISSION MATTERS -25
ADMISSION MATTERS -25
ADMISSION MATTERS -25
ADMISSION MATTERS -25
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 09-05-2025 | FRESH CASES FOR ADMISSION -3 |
| 12-09-2025 | ADMISSION MATTERS -25 |
| 01-08-2025 | ADMISSION MATTERS -25 |
| 30-07-2025 | ADMISSION MATTERS -25 |
| 11-07-2025 | ADMISSION MATTERS -25 |
Orders
The High Court of Uttarakhand directed the respondent PWD department to appoint its arbitrator within two weeks, rejecting the department's pretext that work incompleteness and alleged dues justified refusing arbitrator appointment. The court held such disputes are proper subjects for arbitration and cannot prevent initiating the process. The application was disposed after the department complied by appointing K.P. Joshi as arbitrator; both arbitrators must now appoint a presiding arbitrator for the tribunal to commence proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The High Court of Uttarakhand directed the respondent PWD department to appoint its arbitrator within two weeks, rejecting the department's pretext that work incompleteness and alleged dues justified refusing arbitrator appointment. The court held such disputes are proper subjects for arbitration and cannot prevent initiating the process. The application was disposed after the department complied by appointing K.P. Joshi as arbitrator; both arbitrators must now appoint a presiding arbitrator for the tribunal to commence proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts