Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jammu and Kashmir · body

2025 DAILYLAW 4380 (JK)

M/S INDUS TUBE LTD. TH. V K GUPTA v. UT OF J AND K TH COMMISSIONER SECRETARY , JAL SHAKTI DEPARTMENT, JAMMU AND OTHERS

Arb P/77/2024 · 2025-08-08

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Sr. No.06 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Arb P No.77/2024 M/s Indus Tube Ltd. …Petitioner. Through: Mr. Bhavishya Sudan, Advocate, with Mr. K. K. Aggarwal, Advocate. Vs. UT of J&K and others. ….Respondent(s) Through: Ms. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG. 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) read with Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of an arbitrator. 2. The petitioner being a Private Limited Company engaged in execution of civil contract works and registered under the Companies Act, 1956, participated in the bidding process initiated by respondent nos. 2 sand 3 on 29.11.2016 for "supply of ISI Marked Galvanized Mild Steel Tubes confirming to IS: 1239 part 1/1990 (re-affirmed 1995) with amendment 1 to 5, in random lengths of 4 to 7 mts. screwed on both ends as per IS 554/1990 socketed at one end and other end protected with plastic protector in the sizes of nominal bore ranging from 20 mm to 150 mm in Light and Medium class”. Post evaluation of the technical and financial bids, the contract was awarded in favour of the petitioner by the Chief Engineer-respondent no.2 vide agreement dated 15.02.2017. The said NIT was converted into rate contract for one year and various purchase orders were issued by the respondent from time to time. It is further averred that each purchase order was accompanied by a separate agreement incorporating, inter alia, a price variation clause and an arbitration clause (Clause 24). 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite execution of supplies under the purchase orders, the respondents have withheld amounts towards price variation and have unilaterally applied lower rates finalised by PHE (Kashmir) to the contracts executed under PHE (Jammu). The petitioner claims that a sum of Rs.1,01,84,430/- has been deducted on this account and a total sum of Rs.3,29,21,000/- remains outstanding including price variation dues. 4. The petitioner served legal notices dated 17.11.2023, 03.02.2024 and 14.05.2024 proposing appointment of arbitrators in terms of Clause 24 of the agreement. It is contended that as per Clause 24, each party was to nominate one arbitrator and, in case of disagreement, an umpire was to be appointed. The petitioner nominated its arbitrator but the respondents neither nominated theirs nor agreed to the appointment, thereby attracting the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 11(6) of the Act. 5. It is further submitted that in view of Section 12(5) read with the Seventh Schedule of the Act and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Perkins Eastman Architects DPC & Anr. vs. HSCC (India) Ltd., (2019) 20 SCC 377, the agreed procedure in Clause 24 stands vitiated as it permits each party to nominate its own arbitrator, giving rise to a likelihood of bias, and thus an independent sole arbitrator is required to be appointed by the Court. 6. Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court, the respondents though caused appearance but no reply/ response has been filed on their behalf. 7. The existence of the arbitration clause, as aforesaid, and its invocation by the petitioner vide notices 17.11.2023, 03.02.2024 and 14.05.2024 is not disputed. 8. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the respondents pleads no objection in case the petition is allowed. 9. 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, Mr. Kartar Singh, Retired District and Sessions Judge, 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. 10. 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