Sr. No.01 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU (Through Virtual Mode) Arb P No.80/2025 M/s Gupta Construction Company …Petitioner(s)/Appellants. Through: Mr. Dheeraj Sharma, Advocate. Vs. Union of India and others. ….Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Vishal Sharma DSGI, with Mr. Eishaan Dadhchi, CGSC. CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE O R D E R 10.10.2025 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 partnership firm, was awarded a contract bearing CA No.CEUZ/UDH/02/2018-19 for “PROVN OF SECURITY WALL ALONGWITH ALLIED INFRASTRUCTURE IN CERTAIN UNIT AT DHANSAL” for an amount of Rs.7,21,88,629.00/-. The work order was issued in favour of the petitioner vide letter dated 08.06.2018. The date of completion of the work was 25.06.2019. However, the date of completion was extended by virtue of various deviation orders issued from time to time and lastly vide deviation order dated December 28, 2021, the time was extended till December 31, 2021. The contract work is stated to have been completed on December 18, 2021 to the satisfaction of the respondents and work completion certificate is also stated to have been issued in favour of the petitioner on December 22, 2021. It is urged that after completion of the work, final bill was submitted to the respondents but the same was delayed by a considerable time and finally paid in January, 2023, after making recovery of an amount of Rs.3,18,600/- on account of electricity charges consumed by the petitioner. The petitioner asserts that on account of the said recovery from the final bill as also owing to the non-payment of other dues to the petitioner, a dispute arose between the parties. And, accordingly, the petitioner in terms of Clause 70 of the contract sought reference of the disputes to arbitration vide various letters and lastly vide letter dated 10.10.2023. It is urged that respondents have failed to act and direct appointment of an arbitrator. Hence, this petition. 3. On asking of the Court, Mr. Eishaan Dadhchi, CGSC, present in the Court, accepts notice. 4. The existence of the arbitration clause, as aforesaid, and its invocation by the petitioner vide letter dated October 10, 2023, is not disputed. 5. During the course of hearing, learned senior 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, Sh. Vijender Kumar Jain, Additional Director General (Retd.) MES R/o 51-A First Floor Uday Park Opp. Ansal Plaza, New Delhi, 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 10.10.2025 Abdul Qayoom, Secy. Abdul Qayoom Lone I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 14.10.2025 10:38