HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU … Arb. P No. 14/2024 M/S Vijay Builders Regd. Office Dhar Road, Sattani, Udhampur-182101 (J&K) through its Proprietor Vijay Kumar Gupta age 68 years S/o Late Shri Radhey Krishan R/O Dhar Road Sattani Udhampur-182101. Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Dheeraj Sharma, Advocate. Vs. Union of India through Chief Engineer Military Engineering Services Udhampur Zone, PO: Garhi Udhampur-182121 …..Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Vishal Sharma, DSGI. CORAM: HON9BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE O R D E R 11-04-2025 1. This is a petition under Section 11 (6) of the Jammu & Kashmir Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 [8the Act9] seeking reference of the dispute to an independent Arbitrator. 2 Arb. P No. 14/2024 2. The petitioner claims to be a proprietorship concern carrying on the business in the name of M/s Vijay Builders, Engineers, Contractors and Government Order Suppliers. A contract agreement bearing CA No. CEUZ/UDH/23/2013-14 for Special Repair Structural Repair to Balcony and Parapet Walls in Bldg No. P-01 to 31, P-37, P-38, P-41, P-50, P-66 (JCOs/OR MD ACCN) JNE Under GE (N) at Udhampur for an amount of Rs. 1,43,76,236.18/- was executed between the petitioner and the respondent through Military Engineer Services, HQ Chief Engineer Udhampur Zone on 21.12.2013. The date of completion of work, as envisaged in the contract agreement was 30-12-2014. The petitioner claims that he undertook the contract work assigned to him under various orders as also the deviation orders issued by the respondent from time to time. The work was satisfactorily completed by the petitioner on 31-12-2015 after the respondent extended the period of completion of the work. The petitioner has also placed on record the work completion certificate dated 07.04.2021. The petitioner claims that he submitted the final bills to the respondent for release of the payment but same were delayed for one reason or the other. Even the payment of undisputed part of the bill was not made in time. The dispute having arisen between the petitioner and the respondent qua the contract in question the petitioner invoked the arbitrator clause i.e., Clause 70 of the General Conditions of Contract (IAFW 2249-1989 PRINT) vide its letter dated 15-02.2022 and requested the respondent to appoint the sole Arbitrator in terms of the aforesaid clause. Despite petitioner having approached the respondent many a times, the dispute was not settled by the respondent and, therefore, the instant petition under Section 11 (6) of the Act for appointment of an independent Arbitrator. 3 Arb. P No. 14/2024 3. On being put on notice, the respondent has filed objections. In the objections, the respondent has not disputed the contract agreement or the arbitration clause contained therein. The dispute with regard to pending payments of the final bills raised by the petitioner have been disputed on merits. It is thus submitted by the respondent that since all the payments due to the petitioner have been released, therefore there is no arbitral dispute in existence requiring appointment of the Arbitrator in terms of the arbitration clause. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record I am of the considered opinion that the dispute raised by the petitioner in this petition is fully covered under Clause 70 of the General Conditions of Contract (IAFW 2249-1989 PRINT). As per Clause 70, all disputes between the parties to the contract or, after written notice by either party to the contract to the other party, referable to the sole Arbitration of an Engineer Officer to be appointed by the authority mentioned in the tender documents. 5. Undisputedly, in the instant case despite written notice issued by the petitioner to the respondent for appointment of an Arbitrator in terms of Clause 70, the respondent has failed to act. The respondent has also not given any good reasons in its reply affidavit as to why the request of the petitioner for appointment of an independent Arbitrator in terms of Clause 70 has not been acceded to. In these circumstances the petitioner is entitled to seek appointment of independent Arbitrator in terms of Section 11 (6) of the Act. 6. Accordingly, the application is allowed and Er. Vinod Sharma, Commissioner (Retd.) House No. 42 Sector-1, Trikuta Nagar, Jammu 4 Arb. P No. 14/2024 (180020) is appointed as Arbitrator to enter upon the reference and, after hearing the parties, make his award in accordance with law. A copy of this order is to be sent to the appointed Arbitrator for information and proceeding further in the matter in accordance with law. (Sanjeev Kumar) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE JAMMU: 11.04.2025 Anil Raina, Addl. Registrar/Secy Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No