Arb P No. 77/2025 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Case: Arb P No. 77/2025 Date of Pronouncements : 17.10.2025 Uploaded on: 28.10.2025 M/S MBZ VKGA JV …Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s) Through: Mr. Nonu Khera, Advocate. V/s UT of J&K& Ors. …. 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 by the petitioner under Section 11(6)(a)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (for short >the Act?) seeking appointment of an independent Arbitrator to adjudicate disputes arising out of the EPC Contract Agreement dated 27.08.2018 executed between the petitioner and the respondents. 02. The petitioner, a joint venture firm, was awarded the aforesaid work <Construction of a 1640-metre double lane bridge including approaches over river Chenab at Sajwal (Pargwal–Inderpratappur), District Jammu= by the Chief Engineer, PW(R&B), Jammu, vide Letter of Award dated 03.08.2018 for a total consideration of ₹119.67 crores, with a completion period of 30 months and a defect liability period of 48 months. Accordingly, a formal contract dated 27.08.2018 was executed containing an Arbitration Clause Article 26which provide for resolution of disputes by a Board of three Arbitrators, one to be nominated by each party and the third to be appointed jointly by them. Sr. No. 02 -2- Arb P No. 77/2025 03. During execution of work, disputes are alleged to have arisen between the parties regarding payment delays, price escalation, and prolongation costs as the petitioner was not able to complete the allotted work within the stipulated period. It is contended that the delay caused in completing the allotted work is attributed to many reasons including the Covid-19 restrictions, delay in providing Right of way (ROW), approval in design/drawings etc., and also, for the payments were not made on time by the respondents and the petitioner had to bear all the expenses for non-payment of GST. 04. It is asserted that petitioner approached the respondent–Department vide communications dated 11.01.2024 and 08.03.2024 requesting for release of the payment for the work done and also to resolve the dispute by way of amicable settlement under Clauses 26.1 and 26.2 of the contract. However, the respondents failed to act upon the same. The petitioner thereafter issued a notice dated 16.06.2025 nominating its Arbitrator, Shri Raj Kumar Verma (Retd. Engineer-in- Chief, HP PWD), and calling upon the respondents to nominate their Arbitrator within 30 days. However, despite notice, the respondents failed to nominate their Arbitrator or respond. Consequently, the petitioner issued a final statutory notice under Section 21 of the Act on 30.07.2025 for invocation of the Arbitration for settlement of the dispute which arose between the parties, which again went unanswered by the respondents. Hence, the petition at hand. 05. Heard.Notice. 07. Served with the advance copy of the petition, Ms. Monika Kohli, Senior Additional Advocate General, for the respondents, present in Court accepts notice. 08. The existence of the arbitration clause, as aforesaid, and its invocation by the petitioner vide notice dated 30.07.2025, is not disputed. 09. Thus, in the given circumstances, learned counsel for the respondents, 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 -3- Arb P No. 77/2025 allowed. And, with consent of learned counsel for the parties, Mr. Justice Ali Muhammad Magrey (Retd. Chief Justice, High Court of J&K), 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