HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Case: Arb P No. 85/2025 Date of Pronouncements : 17.10.2025 Uploaded on: 28.10.2025 M/S Reliance Electric Works …Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s) Through: Ms. Anju Sharma, Advocate. V/s Chief Engineer Project Manager, JPDCL, Jammu …. Respondent(s) Through: Ms. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG. CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ORDER 17.10.2025 (ORAL) 01. The present petition has been filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 8the Act’) for appointment of an independent Arbitrator. 02. The petitioner–M/s Reliance Elektrik Works, being a corporate body engaged in the business of construction work participated in e-NIT package No. CE/PWJ/38 of 2017-18 dated 06.03.2018 for carrying out certain works, i.e., survey, Design, Engineering Manufacture, Type Testing, Inspection Supply, Erection Testing and commissioning of Plants and Equipments for construction of 33/11 KV sub stations, 33 KV lines, Distribution Sub stations along with associated line and related works on turnkey basis in Jammu District under Prime Minister9s Development Package (PMDP) Rural Package-A. The total estimated cost of the aforesaid contract was ₹ 47,68,98,841/-. In the said process, after the tender evaluation process and finding the petitioner successful, the respondent accepted the bid of the petitioner. The letter of intent for Turnkey contract of Sr. No. 09 -2- electrification works of Jammu District was issued in favor of the petitioner on 26.06.2018 and in terms of the award dated 11.08.2018, the work was required to be executed in twenty four months from the date of award of contractstrictly in terms of the conditions and provisions contained in the agreement which was executed between the parties on 30.08. 2018. 03. It is submitted that as per the directions of the respondent, the petitioner also executed the additional works in addition to the works already allotted to the petitioner. However, the respondent started making the part payment to the petitioner and not paid the whole amount of bills submitted by the petitioner– Firm. On account of the dispute which arose between the petitioner and respondent, the petitioner vide letters dated 03.09.2024, 01.11.2024, 05.12.2024, 12.01.2025, 08.02.2025 and 28.03.2025 requested the respondent to release the balance amount of bills. However, partial payment was received by the petitioner, but vide letter dated 25.04.2025, the respondent denied the petitioner9s claim for payment of final bill without providing justifiable reason. On account of the said dispute of non-payment of final bill by the respondent, the petitioner invoked Clause 39.2 of GCC [Clause 34(II) of the Letter of Award] vide letter dated 02.05.2025, which provides:- “34.ARBITRATION II. The arbitration shall be conducted by three arbitrators, one each to be nominated by the Contractor and the JKPDD and the third to be appointed by both the arbitration in accordance with the J&K Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1997. If either of the parties fails to appoint its arbitrator within sixty (60) days after receipt of a notice from the other party invoking the Arbitration Clause, the arbitrator appointed by the party invoking the arbitration clause shall become the sole arbitrator to conduct the arbitration.” 04. Accordingly, in terms of the aforesaid letter, the petitioner proposed name of Sh. Shashi Kant (Retd. SDG VPWD & E in CPWD, Delhi) to act as arbitrator on his behalf and requested the respondent to appoint an arbitrator for deciding the dispute within 60 days. It is submitted that since the respondent failed to appoint an arbitrator within the stipulated period, therefore, the arbitrator proposed by the petitioner has become the sole arbitrator, in terms of the contract, to decide the dispute between the parties. Accordingly, the said arbitrator vide -3- letter dated 06.08.2025, informed the petitioner as also the respondent that he has accepted the appointment of sole Arbitrator and asked the parties to submit their respective claims, however, the respondent failed to do the needful. 05. It is urged that since the respondent, despite letter dated 07.07.2025, neither agreed for settlement of the disputes through arbitration nor directed appointment of an arbitrator. Hence, the petition at hand. 06. Heard. Notice. 07. Served with advance copy of the petition, Ms. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG, present in Court, accepts notice. 08. The existence of the arbitration clause, as aforesaid, and its invocation by the petitioner vide notice dated 07.07.2025, is not disputed. 09. Thus, in the given circumstances, learned counsel for the respondent, as always, fairly submits that let an arbitrator be appointed. But since the claim that is sought to be made by the petitioner is vehemently disputed/ denied, it is submitted that respondent be granted liberty to raise all possible pleas/ objections before the arbitral tribunal/ arbitrator in this regard. 10. Accordingly, in the wake of the position sketched out above and in terms of the statements made by the learned counsel for the parties, the petition is allowed. And, with consent of learned counsel for the parties, Mr. Justice J. P. Singh (Former Judge of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, Mobile No. 9018844000) is appointed as the sole arbitrator. Who shall proceed with the matter in accordance with the provisions of the Act. And to make an award within the time provided in the Act itself after charging the prescribed fee along with incidental expenses to be shared by the parties. The respondents are at liberty to raise all the objections as regards the subject matter before the learned Arbitrator. 11. Registry to send a copy of this order to the learned arbitrator. (ARUN PALLI) CHIEF JUSTICE Jammu 17.10.2025 Sunita/Secy. SUNITA KOUL 2025.10.28 15:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document