Sr. No. 11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR (THROUGH VIRTUAL MODE) Arb P No. 34/2025 M/s M A Constructions …Petitioner(s)/appellant(s) Through: Mr. Shah Ashiq Hussain, Advocate Vs. Union of India and Ors ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. T. M. Shamsi, DSGI, with Ms. Rehana Qayoom, Advocate, and Mr. Nazir Ahmad Bhat, Advocate. CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE O R D E R 07-11-2025 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 came to be awarded a work contract pursuant to an order No. 180090/2014/110/E8 dated 29.08.2020 issued by the respondents for “Provision of Security Wall and Allied Infrastructure at Naugam”, at a lump-sum contract value of Rs. 3,23,85,400/-. Following the said award, a detailed work order dated 25th February, 2021, was issued stipulating completion period of 924 days from the date of commencement of the work subject to the terms and conditions of the contract. The petitioner, as required, furnished a bank guarantee to the tune of Rs. 1,19,30,000/-. Accordingly, after allotment of the work, the petitioner proceeded to execute the work but on account of alleged non handing over of the entire site, defective drawings, restrictions imposed by the authorities, Covid-19 lockdowns, ban on quarrying and non-availability of labour and material due to the prevailing conditions, the contract work could not be completed within the stipulated period resulting in delay in completing the work. The petitioner, therefore, sought extension in time to complete the work contract and also requested for foreclosure of the contract in case no further work sites are available. However, the respondents, instead of acceding to the requests of the petitioner, cancelled the contract vide order dated January 21, 2025. Feeling aggrieved of the action of the respondents, the petitioner approached the court of Principal District Judge, Srinagar, challenging the cancellation order. It is alleged that the action of the respondents to cancel the contract has resulted in substantial financial losses to the petitioner. Accordingly, it is alleged that petitioner invoked the arbitration Clause of the agreement and requested the respondents for appointment of an arbitrator. Since the respondents have failed to appoint an arbitrator in the matter, the petitioner has approached this Court by the medium of petition at hand. 3. Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court, the respondents had caused appearance and filed their response. The respondents have inter alia contended that the petition is not maintainable as no cause of action has accrued to the petitioner. It is submitted that delay in execution of the work is solely attributable to the petitioner and the petitioner cannot seek reference of the dispute to arbitration unless and until the work is completed. It is submitted that the site was handed over to the petitioner as per the contract agreement and the various issues raised by the petitioner from time to time were redressed promptly by the respondents. Further, it is urged that the petitioner, before approaching this Court in terms of Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, was required to approach the Personal Designate i.e., Engineer-in-Chief for appointment of an arbitrator and without following the procedure as provided in the arbitration agreement, the petitioner has no locus to approach this Court by filing the present petition. However, the allotment of work, existence of arbitration clause and service of notice is not disputed by the respondents. 4. The existence of the arbitration clause, as aforesaid, and its invocation by the petitioner is not disputed. 5. Although, as indicated earlier, the respondents have filed objections to the petition but during the course of hearing, learned counsel for the respondents pleads no objection in case the petition is allowed. 6. 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 the consent of learned counsel for the parties, Mr. Sunil Chopra, Additional Director General Retd. MES R/o 51-A First Floor Uday Park Opp Ansal Plaza New Delhi, 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. 7. Registry to send a copy of this order to the learned arbitrator. (ARUN PALLI) CHIEF JUSTICE Srinagar 07.11.2025 Abdul Qayoom, Secy. Abdul Qayoom Lone I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 12.11.2025 11:57