Sr. No.17 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Arb P No.85/2024 M/s Chanchal Khajuria Consultant Engineers …Petitioner. Through: Mr. Pranav Kohli, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Farhan Mirza, Advocate. Vs. Union of India and others. ….Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Vishal Sharma DSGI. CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE O R D E R 08.08.2025 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 being a Private Company registered with Border Roads Organisation and Public Works Department, J&K, participated in the bidding process initiated by respondents vide NIT dated August 13, 2009, for the works “DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF 50 MTR (C/C OF ABUTMENT BEARINGS) SINGLE SPAN STEEL TRUSS SUPERSTRUCTURE (THROUGH TYPE) MAJOR PMT BRIDGE ON DEPARTMENTALLY CONSTRUCTED SUBSTRUCTURE OVER WHISKEY NALLAH AT KM 181.720 ON UPASI-SARCHU ROAD UNDER PROJECT HIMANK IN JAMMU & KASHMIR STATE”. Post evaluation of the technical and financial bids, the petitioner was declared as the successful bidder and accordingly, letter of intent/ award dated July 12, 2010 was issued in favour of the petitioner. It is stated that the subject project involved design, fabrication and launching of 50 Mtrs Span Steel Bridge. And the department took four and a half years in completing the sub-structure (roads) leading to the subject bridge. It is further submitted that on account of the delays attributable to the respondents, the subject work could not be completed by the petitioner. However, it is submitted that the petitioner has executed the work to the extent of 70% and the respondents, in an illegal and arbitrary manner, have taken recourse to Clause 54 GCC IAFW 2249, and invited tenders for execution of the balance work at the risk and cost of the petitioner. It is submitted that the work was allotted to the petitioner at a cost of Rs. 190 lacs and despite petitioner having executed the work to the extent of 70%, the respondents have invited tender at the estimated cost of Rs. 138 lakhs. It is further submitted that respondents cannot make any recovery, withhold any amounts due and payable to the petitioner in view of invocation of Clause 54 of the General Conditions of the Contract. Accordingly, it is alleged that a dispute has arisen between the parties in relation to the subject contract which requires to be adjudicated through arbitration. Accordingly, it is alleged that a legal notice dated 23.12.2021, was served upon the respondents seeking appointment of an arbitrator in the matter. But despite service of notice invoking arbitration clause 70 of the General Conditions of Contract, the respondents have failed to act and direct appointment of an arbitrator. Hence, this petition. 3. Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court, the respondents though caused appearance but no reply/ response has been filed on their behalf. 4. The existence of the arbitration clause, as aforesaid, and its invocation by the petitioner vide notice dated 23.12.2021 is not disputed. 5. 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 consent of learned counsel for the parties, Er. Vinod Sharma, 42, Sector 1-A, Trikuta Nagar, Jammu-180020, 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 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