✦ Meghalaya High Court · 16 Mar 2026

Judgment · High Court · 2026

3 min read

Case at a glance

Provisions considered

Key paragraphs

  • Para 33. In the circumstances, this application is finally disposed of by referring the disputes and differences to the sole arbitrator; and hereby orders as follows: - i) Hon’ble Mr. Justice T. Vaiphei (Retd.) Chief Justice is hereby appointed as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon…

Judgment

Page 1 of 4 Serial No. 34 Regular List HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG Arb. P. No. 5 of 2025 Date of Decision: 16.03.2026 M/s Rysa Infratech Ltd., company (Formerly known as M/s Rysa Infratech Pvt. Ltd.,) having its registered office at No. 901, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066 represented by its Admin and Account Assistant, namely Mr. Vivek Raj, S/o Arun Kumar Singh, aged about 25 years R/o C/o Arun Kumar Singh, Near Ranibazar, Hazara Mohalla, P.O Katrasgarh, Akashkanali, P.O. Katrasgarh, District, Dhanbad, Jharkhand-828113 … Petitioner(s) Versus 1. Union of India represented by Chief Engineer Shillong Zone and Garrison Engineer 868 WKS Sec. … Respondent(s) Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice H. S. Thangkhiew, Judge Appearance: For the Appellant(s) : Mr. R. Kharkrang, Adv. vice Mr. N. Khera, Adv. For the Respondent(s) : Dr. N. Mozika, DSGI with Ms. C. Jala, Adv. __________________________________________________________ Page 2 of 4 __________________________________________________________ i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No Law journals etc: ii) Whether approved for publication Yes/No in press: JUDGMENT AND ORDER 1. This application has been filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) seeking appointment of an Arbitrator for adjudication of the disputes between the petitioner and the respondents in accordance with the A&C Act, having due regard to Clause 70 of the IAFW-2249 General Conditions of Contract.

2.

In the course of the proceedings, the learned counsel for the parties have no objections to the name suggested by this Court, to be the sole arbitrator to adjudicate the matter.

3.

In the circumstances, this application is finally disposed of by referring the disputes and differences to the sole arbitrator; and hereby orders as follows: - i) Hon’ble Mr. Justice T. Vaiphei (Retd.) Chief Justice is hereby appointed as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes and differences between the parties arising out of and in connection with the Agreement referred to above. Page 3 of 4 ii) A copy of this order will be communicated to the learned Sole Arbitrator by the petitioner within a period of 2(two) weeks, from the date of this order, along with contact details and other particulars of the parties to the Arbitral Tribunal alongwith a copy of this order. iii) The learned Sole Arbitrator is requested to forward the Statutory Statement of Disclosure under Section 11(a) read with Section 12(1) of the A&C Act, 1996 to the advocates for the applicant, so as to enable them to file the same in the Registry of this Court, which shall retain the same in the file of this application, and a copy be furnished by the advocate for the applicant to the respondents. iv) The parties shall appear before the learned Sole Arbitrator on such date and at such place as indicated, to obtain appropriate directions with regard to conduct of the arbitration, including fixing a schedule for pleadings, examination of witnesses, if any, schedule of hearing etc. v) All arbitral costs and fees of the Arbitral Tribunal shall be borne by the parties equally in the first instance and shall be subject to any final Award that may be passed by the Tribunal in relation to costs. Signature Not Verified VALENTINO LYNDEM Page 4 of 4 4. As ordered above, the instant application accordingly stands disposed of. JUDGE Meghalaya 16.03.2026 “V. Lyndem-PS”

Questions this judgment answers

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — s. 11; A&C Act, 1996 — ss. 11(a), 12(1).

Which court decided this case, and when?

Meghalaya High Court, on 16 Mar 2026.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Meghalaya High Court or eCourts case status. ← Search more judgments