Sr. No.06 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR Arb P No.37/2025 M/s Abdul Majeed Bhat …Petitioner(s)/Appellants. Through: Mr. S. M. Saleem Shahida, Advocate. Vs. Military Engineer Services (MES) and anr. ….Respondent(s) Through: Ms. Rehana Qayoom, Advocate, vice Mr. T. M. Shamsi, DSGI. CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE O R D E R 10.10.2025 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of an arbitrator. 2. The petitioner, a registered Contractor, was awarded a contract “RECONSTRUCTION OF DAMAGED PORTION OF OT BLDG NO P-173 AND ITS ANCILLARIES ALONG WITH PROVN OF RETAINING WALL AT 92 BH AT BB CANTT SRINAGAR” on 03.11.2016, for an amount of Rs. 1,41,69,229/-. In pursuance to the terms and conditions of the contract, the petitioner deposited an amount of Rs. 1,71,000/- as a security deposit and Rs. 2,18,000/-as earnest money with the respondents. 3. It is stated that the work was completed within the stipulated time and a Work Completion Certificate was also issued by the respondents. After completion of the contract work, an additional work, as was requested by the respondents, is stated to have been executed by the petitioner. However, despite completion of the contract as also the additional work, the respondents have not released the final bill, security deposit and the payments for the additional work. It is urged that the respondents have withheld the payment primarily on the ground of alleged non-deposition of taxes which includes GST/Service Tax/Sales Tax. Owing to the failure of the respondents to release the due payments in favour of the petitioner, a legal notice dated 02.06.2025 invoking Clause 29 of the contract, was served upon the respondents requesting for appointment of an arbitrator. Replying to the said notice, the respondents while maintaining their stand denied the execution of the additional works and non- compliance to the deposition/ deduction of applicable taxes, rejected the request of the petitioner. Accordingly, a dispute is alleged to have arisen between the parties constraining the petitioner to approach this Court. Hence, the petition at hand. 4. On asking of the Court, Ms. Rehana Qayoom, Advocate, present in the Court, accepts notice. 5. The existence of the arbitration clause, as aforesaid, and its invocation by the petitioner vide letter dated 02.06.2025, is not disputed. 6. During the course of hearing, learned senior counsel for the respondents pleads no objection in case the petition is allowed. However, it is submitted that the respondents be given liberty to put-forth its objections with regard to the subject matter before the arbitrator. 7. In the given facts and circumstances, coupled with statement made at the Bar by learned counsel for the respondents, the petition is allowed. Accordingly, with consent of learned counsel for the parties, Sh. Satish Chander, Additional Director General Retd. MES R/o Lane no.4 Greater Kailash Jammu, 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. 8. Registry to send a copy of this order to the learned arbitrator. (ARUN PALLI) CHIEF JUSTICE Srinagar 10.10.2025 Abdul Qayoom, Secy. Abdul Qayoom Lone I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 14.10.2025 10:38