Sr. No.03 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR (Through Virtual Mode) Arb P No.48/2025 Simplex Infrastructure Limited through its authorized signatory Simplex House, 27 Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata-700017 through Mr. Gautam Dasgupta (Age 66 years) Authorized Representative. …Petitioner. Through: Mr. S. D. Singh, Advocate, through VC Mr. Muzamil Khursheed, Advocate, through VC. Vs. Jammu & Kashmir Economic Reconstruction Agency through its Chief Executive Officer, 2nd Floor, ERA Commercial Complex, Rambagh, Srinagar, J&K, India-190009 ….Respondent. Through: Mr. Waseem Gul, Advocate. CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE O R D E R 20.02.2026 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of an arbitrator. 2. In brief, the case set out in the petition is: The petitioner being a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, is engaged in the business of construction and engineering. The petitioner participated in the bidding process initiated by respondent on 24.05.2012 for construction of “Flyover/ Expressway Corridor from Jehangir Chowk to Rambagh Natipora in Srinagar City”. Post evaluation of the bids, the petitioner emerged as the successful bidder with the lowest accepted bid price of Rs.200,74,01,446/- against the estimated cost of Rs.219.21 Crores. And, accordingly, the respondent vide award letter dated 12.04.2013 accepted the bid of the petitioner for contract value of Rs. 200,74,01,446/- and a formal contract agreement was executed between the parties on 7th May, 2013. The work on the project was to commence on 22.06.2013 and scheduled date of completion was fixed as 21.06.2016. However, due to unprecedented floods of 2014 and repeated curfews and disturbances as also delayed handover of the site and drawings resulted in delayed execution of the work. And owing to the continued defaults on the part of the respondent, the petitioner terminated the contract twice discharging itself from further performance. However, the work was resumed by the petitioner on the request of the respondent and the petitioner discharged its contractual obligations diligently. It is urged that the respondent failed to release the outstanding dues and compensate the petitioner for substantial losses and additional expenses incurred due to prolonged execution. The project was finally completed and put to public use with effect from 05.08.2019 and a gross final bill was submitted by the petitioner on 15.12.2020. It is urged that in total 11 extensions were granted to the petitioner, however, the respondent illegally and arbitrarily imposed cumulative delay damages of 7.5% on the petitioner. And, on completion of the project, the respondent also illegally and arbitrarily encashed the bank guarantee of Rs.3.33 Crores furnished by the petitioner. It is stated that despite requesting time and again for release of the outstanding payments and resolution of the disputes inter alia relating to arbitrary reduction of sanctioned EOTs, withholding/ reduction of already approved payment and wrongful imposition of delay damages, the respondent failed to act in the matter constraining the petitioner to issue legal notice dated 29.10.2021 invoking arbitration Clause 20.6 of the General Conditions of the Contract. In response to the legal notice dated 29.10.2021, the respondent proposed that arbitration be presided over by an Arbitral Tribunal consisting of three arbitrators; among the three one may be nominated by petitioner and one by the respondent and thereafter the two arbitrators may appoint a presiding arbitrator. And, in response thereto, the petitioner, vide letter dated 30.03.2022, nominated/ appointed Hon’ble Mr. Justice (Retd.) Permod Kohli, Former Chief Justice, Sikkim High Court, as one of the arbitrators. However, the respondent failed to nominate/ appoint the arbitrator on their behalf, constraining the petitioner to approach the High Court of Delhi, under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. However, the petition, for want of territorial jurisdiction and reserving liberty with the petitioner to seek appropriate remedies before the appropriate forum, was dismissed on July 30, 2024. Post dismissal of the petition under Section 11 before the Delhi High Court, the petitioner vide letter dated 14.05.2025 nominated/ appointed Justice Mansoor Ahmed Mir (Retd.), Former Chief Justice of Himachal Pradesh High Court, as arbitrator on its behalf and requested the respondent to appoint/ nominate an arbitrator on their behalf. However, the respondents failed to do the needful and that is how the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, seeking appointment of arbitrator on behalf of the respondent as also the Presiding arbitrator to be appointed by the two arbitrators. 3. Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court, the respondent appeared and filed the response. In brief what is sought to be urged is that petitioner failed to comply with the conditions of the contract and the delay caused in execution of the contract is attributable to the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner was fully compensated for the delays not attributable to it, however, the petitioner was penalized for 411 days delay which is solely attributable to him. It is urged that the petition is misconceived and bereft of any legal force and that the petitioner has no cause to approach this Court. Hence, the respondent prays for dismissal of the petition. 4. Although, as indicated earlier, the respondent has filed detailed objections to the petition, however, existence of the arbitration clause, as aforesaid, and its invocation by the petitioner vide notice dated 29.10.2021 is not disputed. Accordingly, 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 disputed/ denied, the respondents be granted liberty to raise all possible pleas/ objections before the arbitral tribunal/ arbitrator in this regard. 5. 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. Page 4 of 4 6. With consent of learned counsel for the parties, Arbitral Tribunal comprising of the following members is hereby constituted: (I) Mr. Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Former Chief Justice of Himachal Pradesh High Court. Mob. No.9419000993 (Arbitrator) (II) Mr. Justice Ali Muhammad Magrey, Former Chief Justice of High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh. Mob. No.6005509928 (Arbitrator) The above two arbitrators shall appoint the third arbitrator who shall act as the Presiding Arbitrator. 7. The Arbitral Tribunal shall proceed in 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 Arbitral Tribunal. 8. Registry to communicate the copy of this order to the learned arbitrators. (ARUN PALLI) CHIEF JUSTICE Jammu 20.02.2026 Abdul Qayoom, Secy. Abdul Qayoom Lone I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 02.03.2026 15:44