Sr. No.23 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Arb P No.44/2025 Union of India and others. …Petitioner. Through: Mr. Vishal Sharma DSGI. Vs. M/s Ravinder Kapoor ….Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Advocate, for respondent no.1. CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE O R D E R 08.08.2025 1. The present petition under Section 14(2) read with Sections 11(6) and 15(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, has been filed by the petitioner, seeking termination of the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal and appointment of a new Arbitrator. 2. It is averred in the petition, that respondent no.1 was allotted a contract bearing CA No.CEPZ-19/2015-16 for “PROVN OF CHILDREN SCHOOL AT B D BARI JAMMU”. In relation to the said contract certain disputes arose and, accordingly, for reference of the dispute an application under Section 11(6) being Arb No.36/2021 was filed before this Court. The application came to be allowed vide order dated 06.02.2023 appointing Mr. U. K. Jalali, Sr. Advocate, as arbitrator. Since, as per the condition of the arbitration clause, the arbitrator has to be an engineer, as such, on fresh applications filed by the parties, Mr. Sudesh Gupta, Retd. Additional Director General Contracts was appointed as Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes pertaining to the said contract vide order dated 13.08.2024. 3. It is alleged that the learned arbitrator appointed in the matter during his tenure in the MES at Jammu had professional association with the claimant-M/s Ravinder Kapoor and had dealt with his contractual issues thereby establishing a direct professional relationship with the claimant contractor. However, the appointed arbitrator failed to disclose his professional relationship in his statutory declaration under Section 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and rather denied any such relationship. It is further stated in the petition that it has come to the notice of the petitioner that son of the appointed arbitrator, Sh. Mohit Gupta, is the sole proprietor of the firm M/s Bali Enterprises, which is currently executing two contracts for the petitioner constituting a direct familial relationship and a potential conflict of interest in the arbitration proceedings. The petitioners assert that lack of disclosure of above facts raises serious doubts regarding the impartiality of the learned arbitrator. It is stated that the learned arbitrator was, accordingly, requested to recuse himself from the present arbitration proceedings which he refused to do. Accordingly, it is prayed that mandate of the arbitral tribunal be terminated and a fresh arbitrator may be appointed in the matter. 4. Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court, the respondent no.1 though caused appearance but no reply/ response has been filed on their behalf. However, no notice was issued to respondent no.2-arbitrator. 5. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 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 respondent no.1, the petition is allowed and the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal shall stand terminated. And, with consent of learned counsel for the parties, Sh. Rajinder Paul Singhhal, Additional Director General, Flat No. 6-A, 201, Hazelwood Society, AF, High Ground Road, Zirakpur, Punjab-140603 (Mobile No.7049983601) is appointed as the sole arbitrator. Who shall proceed with the matter in accordance with the provisions of the Act from the stage it had already reached. 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 inform the learned arbitrators accordingly by forwarding a copy of this order to them. (ARUN PALLI) CHIEF JUSTICE Jammu 08.08.2025 Abdul Qayoom, Secy. Abdul Qayoom Lone I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 18.08.2025 15:32