HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Arb P No.68/2023 M/s Onkar Nath Bhalla and Sons Contractor Pvt. Ltd. H. No. 107 Rani Ka Bagh Amritsar 143001 Through Director Rohit Bhalla, Age 49 years S/O Sh. Onkar Nath Bhalla R/O H. No. 26 Marble Enclave Sector 4 Ext Trikuta Nagar Jammu 180012 Jammu ….Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s) Through :- Mr. Dheeraj Sharma, Advocate. V/s Union of India Through Chief Engineer (AF) Zone C/O 39 Wing AF Pin-936839 C/O 56 APO ….Respondent(s) Through :- Mr. Sumant Sudan, Advocate vice Mr. Vishal Sharma, DSGI. CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ORDER 13.02.2025 1. Heard Mr. Dheeraj Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sumant Sudan, learned counsel appearing vice Mr. Vishal Sharma, learned DSGI for the respondent at length and perused the record. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking appointment of an independent Arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the J&K Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to resolve the dispute that has arisen between the parties. 3. Brief facts, which lead to the filing of the present petition, are that the petitioner is a company carrying on the business as M/s Onkar Nath Bhalla & Sons Contractor Pvt. Ltd. and Govt. Order Suppliers. Sr. No. 13 2 Arb P No. 68/2023 4. That on 21.11.2014, a contract agreement bearing CA No.CEAFU- 27/2014-15 for Provision of STAND BT ATC AT AIR FORCE STATION PATHANKOT for an amount of Rs.2,78,55,457,31 was accepted by the Chief Engineer (AF) Zone, C/O 39 Wing, AF PIN-936839 in favour of the petitioner. The work order no. 1(F) was issued on 01.12.2014 in favour of the petitioner by GE(AF) Air Force Station Pathankot-145001. The work site was handed over on 08.12.2014 and the work commenced on the same day, whereas the date of completion of work was 07.06.2016. Thereafter, on 14.06.2017, the petitioner company completed the given work within the extended period of contract and the final bill submitted by the petitioner on 11.10.2017. It is averred in the petition that despite completion of the work, the respondents have not cleared the final bills of the petitioner. 5. It is stated in the petition that the petitioner vide letter no. ONBS/CEAFU-27/14-15/SAT addressed to the Engineer-in-Chief Branch (E-8 Section) Integrated HQ of MoD (Army) Kashmir House, Rajaji Marg, New Delhi- 110011 requested the respondents to appoint the sole arbitrator in his case to resolve the disputes. A reminder was sent in this regard on 18.04.2022. 6. Dis-satisfied with the inaction on the part of the UOI to resolve the disputes within the stipulated time period, the petitioner has approached this court by way of filing this petition under Section 11(6) of the J&K Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a request is made to the department for referring the disputes between the parties for arbitration under Condition-70 of GCC (IAFW-2249). 8. It is stated in the petition that the parties to the contract agreement are governed by the General conditions of Contract being IAFW-2249. The clause 70 3 Arb P No. 68/2023 of the General Conditions of Contract –IAFW-2249 provides that all disputes between the parties to the contract shall after written notice by either party to the contract to the other of them be referred to Sole Arbitrator. That in this regard, the petitioner firm invoked the arbitration clause 70 of the contract agreement vide various letters mentioned (supra) and requested the respondent for reference of the claims to the Arbitrator. However, the respondent has not considered the claims of the petitioner firm. 9. It is averred in the petition that an independent arbitrator is required to be appointed in this case in view of the prohibition contained in Section 12(5) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 read with Schedule 7 thereof. 10. In the above backdrop, the petitioner approached this court under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for reference of disputes/claims to an independent arbitrator. 11. Mr. Sumant Sudan, learned counsel appearing vice Mr. Vishal Sharma, learned DSGI appearing for the respondent has resisted the application for appointment of arbitrator though despite availing many opportunities, objections have not been filed by the respondents. 12. The fact that the petitioner has raised certain claims which, according to the petitioner, have not been addressed by the respondent, this Court is of the view that a dispute exists between the parties, which would require resolution in accordance with the aforementioned Clause 70 of the General Conditions of Contract and this court is of the view that the dispute has to be ultimately decided by an Arbitrator. 13. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, I appoint Mr. Vijender Kumar Jain, Pr. Chief Material Manager (retd.), Railways to act as the sole Arbitrator in this case, who shall proceed in the matter to decide the dispute 4 Arb P No. 68/2023 between the parties and the arbitrator is entitled to fee in terms of the fee structure as laid down by the Ministry of Defence; as may be applicable, along with other expenses as may be provided along therewith. 14. Parties may raise their claims and counter claims before the Arbitrator. 15. Registry to inform the Ld. Arbitrator accordingly. 16. With the above observations, the petition stands disposed of. Jammu: 13.02.2025 Raj Kumar ) (Tashi Rabstan) Chief Justice