Sr. No.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU (Through Virtual Mode) Arb P No.75/2025 M/s V K Gupta and Associates Engineers …Petitioner(s)/Appellants. Through: Mr. Nonu S Khera, Advocate, with Mr. Harmeet Mehta, 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 19.09.2025 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 registered partnership firm engaged in the business of execution of bridges of all types, having participated in the bidding process and its bid having been accepted by the respondents work “Design & Construction of 500 Mtr. Span Pre-Stressed Concrete Double Lane Bridge including approaches of length 1875 Mtr (1175 Mtr. On right side & 700 Mtr. On left side) over river Ujh at Jothana (Kathua) under CRF” was awarded in its favour vide allotment letter dated June 19, 2017. It is submitted that the subject work was to be completed within a period of three years, however, various hindrances and difficulties the work could not be completed within time. Besides, the respondents failed to make the payment in respect of the executed works, a number of disputes arose during the execution of the work. Accordingly, the petitioner, in terms of clause 24.1 of the General Conditions of the Contract, referred the disputes to the respondent Chief Engineer, vide letter dated March 12, 2024. However, owing to the failure of the respondent-Chief Engineer to adjudicate the disputes, the petitioner invoked arbitration clause 25 of the General Conditions of the Contract by issuing notice dated April 29, 2024, under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and also proposed its nominee arbitrator. However, the respondents having failed to appoint its nominee arbitrator within 30 days time, resulted in forfeiture of their right to do. Hence, this petition. 3. On asking of the Court, Ms. Monika Kohli, learned Sr. AAG, present in Court, accepts notice. 4. The existence of the arbitration clause, as aforesaid, and its invocation by the petitioner vide notice dated April 29 2025, is not disputed. 5. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the respondents pleads no objection in case the petition is allowed. However, it is submitted that the respondents be given liberty to put-forth its objections with regard to the subject matter before the arbitrator. 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, Mr. Justice Nissar Ahmad Kakru, Retd. Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, 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. The respondents are at liberty to raise all the objections as regards the subject matter before the learned Arbitrator. 7. Registry to send a copy of this order to the learned arbitrator. (ARUN PALLI) CHIEF JUSTICE Srinagar 19.09.2025 Abdul Qayoom, Secy. Abdul Qayoom Lone I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 19.09.2025 03:29