Meghalaya High CourtArbitration and MediationCivil Procedure and Evidence

After Parties Agree On Sole Arbitrator, Meghalaya HC Appoints Jopmiki Shylla To Hear Military Engineering Contract Dispute

M/S HARIOM PROJECTS PVT. LTD.v.UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

After Parties Agree On Sole Arbitrator, Meghalaya HC Appoints Jopmiki Shylla To Hear Military Engineering Contract Dispute. M/S HARIOM PROJECTS PVT. LTD. vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.. Meghalaya High Court. LawLens
The LawLens card for this judgmentXLinkedInWhatsApp

In brief

The question

1. Whether a sole arbitrator should be appointed to adjudicate the disputes arising out of the contract

The court held

The Court appointed Mr. Jopmiki Shylla, Advocate, as sole arbitrator to adjudicate the contractual disputes.

It also directed

The petitioner was directed to communicate the order and relevant party particulars to the arbitrator within two weeks; the arbitrator was requested to provide the required statutory disclosure; the parties were to appear for procedural directions; and arbitral costs and fees were to be borne equally in the first instance, subject to the final award on costs. The application was disposed of.

01Facts

The petitioner filed an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of an arbitrator to resolve disputes under Condition 70 of Contract Agreement No. CESZ/LEI/24 of 2020–2021, including claims in its Notice of Arbitration dated 12 May 2026

p. 2

During the proceedings, counsel for both sides agreed to the appointment of Mr. Jopmiki Shylla, Advocate, as sole arbitrator

p. 3

02Issues

i.1. Whether a sole arbitrator should be appointed to adjudicate the disputes arising out of the contract

p. 3

ii.2. What directions should govern the appointment and initial conduct of the arbitration

pp. 3–4

03Law Applied

The application was brought under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which provides for court appointment of an arbitrator in the circumstances specified by that provision.

p. 2

The Court also directed the arbitrator to provide the statutory disclosure under Section 11(8) read with Section 12(1) of the Act.

p. 3

Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11Section 12

04Reasoning

The Court recorded that both parties had agreed to the appointment of Mr. Shylla as sole arbitrator.

p. 3

In light of that agreement, it referred the disputes arising out of and in connection with the contract to him and gave directions concerning communication of the order, disclosure, the parties’ appearance, and arbitral costs.

pp. 3–4

05Holding

The Court appointed Mr. Jopmiki Shylla, Advocate, as sole arbitrator to adjudicate the contractual disputes.

p. 3

The petitioner was directed to communicate the order and relevant party particulars to the arbitrator within two weeks; the arbitrator was requested to provide the required statutory disclosure; the parties were to appear for procedural directions; and arbitral costs and fees were to be borne equally in the first instance, subject to the final award on costs. The application was disposed of.

pp. 3–4
Meghalaya High Court

Original Court PDF

M/S HARIOM PROJECTS PVT. LTD.vsUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Meghalaya High Court · October 30, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment