Sr. No.07 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR Arb P No.8/2025 M/s Techlegends Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. …Petitioner. Through: Mr. Showkat Ali Khan, Advocate. Vs. Union of India ….Respondent(s) Through: Mr. T. M. Shamsi, DSGI, with Ms. Rehana Qayoom, Advocate. CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE O R D E R 10.07.2025 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of an arbitrator. 2. In terms of letter dated 30th September 2014, contract work “Provn of ADM Block and Single OFFRS ACCN at Rampur” was awarded in favour of the petitioner for a lump sum amount of Rs.9,11,11,849/- to be completed within a period of 36 months. It is stated that owing to the omissions and commissions on the part of the respondents, the execution of the work got delayed and the time was extended by the respondents from time to time till 12th September, 2023. It is stated that in order to hide their inactions, the respondents served a number of show cause notices upon the petitioner and at last a final show cause notice was issued asking the petitioner to complete execution of the work within fifteen days and in failure the contract shall be cancelled. Petitioner, accordingly, submitted his reply to the show cause notice asking the respondents to allow him to complete the work, however, the respondents did not allow the petitioner and joined a dispute and are bent upon to terminate the contract. The petitioner having failed to persuade the respondents to allow him to complete the work, served a legal notice dated January 5, 2025, upon the respondents invoking arbitration clause 70 of the General Conditions of the Contract, seeking appointment of an arbitrator in the matter. But despite service of notice invoking arbitration clause 70 of the General Conditions of Contract, the respondents have failed to act and direct appointment of an arbitrator. Hence, this petition. 3. Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court, the respondents had caused appearance and filed their response. In brief what is sought to be urged is; the petition is not maintainable as no cause of action accrued to the petitioner. It is submitted that delay in execution of the work solely attributable to the petitioner and the petitioner cannot seek reference of the dispute to arbitration unless and until the work is completed. However, the allotment of work, existence of arbitration clause and service of notice is not disputed by the respondents. 4. The existence of the arbitration clause, as aforesaid, and its invocation by the petitioner vide notice dated 05.01.2025 is not disputed. 5. 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. 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 Mansoor Ahmad Mir (Former Chief Justice of Himachal Pradesh High Court), 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. 7. Registry to send a copy of this order to the learned arbitrator. (ARUN PALLI) CHIEF JUSTICE Srinagar 10.07.2025 Abdul Qayoom, Secy. Abdul Qayoom Lone I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 11.07.2025 06:34