Sr. No.03 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU (Through Virtual Mode) Arb P No.47/2022 Citizens Cooperative Bank Ltd. …Petitioner(s)/Appellants. Through: Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, Advocate. Vs. Jammu Development Authority and another. ….Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Sachin Dogra, Advocate. Mr. Rahul Parihar, Advocate. CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE O R D E R 08.05.2025 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 the Urban Cooperative Bank, registered under the Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, was allotted a plot of land measuring 90 x 210 (18900 Sqft) on lease initially for a period of forty years. In this regard a lease deed was executed interse the parties and it was agreed that the petitioner will utilise the land for purposes of construction of building office within three years from the date of execution of the lease deed. On execution of the lease deed, the petitioner, in the year 1995, paid a sum of Rs. 43.75 lakhs as premium for a period of forty years as also the annual rent at the Rs.100/- per marla. The petitioner could not raise the construction within the stipulated period of three years, however, pursuant to the request of the petitioner, the permission for raising the construction was granted by the respondent on 06.11.2007 post deposition of building permission fee of Rs.7,86,700/-. Accordingly, the foundation stone was laid, however, the construction could not be carried out on account of financial constraints. However, a request letter dated 10.01.2011, was addressed by the petitioner to the respondent for revalidation of the permission. But the same has not been revalidated. And instead of revalidating the permission, the respondents rather, after a lapse of over eight years, have issued a notice dated 01.06.2020, asking the petitioner to explain as to why the lease deed be not cancelled on account of failure on its part to raise construction. Further, despite the order of status-quo dated 22.02.2022, passed in the application filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, by the court of competent jurisdiction, the respondents have cancelled the lease deed vide order dated 22.02.2022. Thus, the petitioner was compelled to invoke clause 4(2) of the lease deed and sought reference of the dispute to arbitrator. But as despite lapse of considerable time, the request has not been acceded, the petitioner has approached this Court and thus this petition. 3. On notice of the petition, the respondents appeared and filed their response, contending therein that the petition is not maintainable on account of cancellation of the lease deed. However, it is not disputed that the same provides for determination of the dispute by way of arbitration. It is further stated in the response/ objections that since the petitioner Bank failed to raise construction on the allotted land for a long period of 25 years and rather started alienating the leased land in favour of a third party, the respondents cancelled the lease deed. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The pleadings exchanged have also been perused. 5. The existence of the arbitration clause, as aforesaid, and its invocation by the petitioner vide letter dated 30.03.2022 is not disputed. 6. 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. 7. In the facts and circumstances, since the arbitration clause and the invocation of the arbitration clause are not disputed coupled with statement made at Bar by learned counsel for the respondents, this application is allowed and Mr. Kartar Singh, Retd. District & Sessions Judge, (Mobile No.9419134377) is appointed as the sole arbitrator who shall proceed in the matter in accordance with the provisions of the Act 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. 8. Arbitration Petition stands disposed of accordingly. (ARUN PALLI) CHIEF JUSTICE Srinagar 08.05.2025 Abdul Qayoom, Secy. Abdul Qayoom Lone I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 09.05.2025 16:14