Sr. No.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH ATSRINAGAR Arb P No.37/2024 M/s Country Constructions …Petitioner. Through: Mr. Aswad Attar, Advocate. Vs. J&K Power Transmission Corpn. Ltd. &anr. ….Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Faheem Nissar Shah, GA. CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE O R D E R 29.08.2025 01. The present petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of an arbitrator. 02. Pursuant to e-NIT No. TLMD-II/01 of 2020 dated 20.04.2020, the Executive Engineer, Transmission Line Maintt. Div.-II, Pampore (Kashmir) invited bids for replacement of existing power transformers and allied works at 132/33 KV Grid Sub-Station Pampore. The petitioner participated in the tendering process and having been declared as L1, was issued Letter of Award by the respondents vide order dated 04.03.2021. The work was to be completed within a period of 07 months i.e., up to 04.10.2021. The case set up by the petitioner is that, soon after the allotment, the entire country was hit with Covid-19 pandemic and owing to the restrictions imposed by the authorities, the petitioner was unable to fulfill its contractual obligations timely. The petitioner, accordingly, sought extension of the time vide his letter dated 20.10.2021, however, no response was ever received. However, the subsequent request made in this regard was considered and acceded to by the respondents and vide communication dated 25.07.2022, the completion period was extended up to 30.10.2022. It is submitted that, in the meanwhile, the petitioner was able to supply one transformer despite difficulties caused by the pandemic. The petitioner, in response to the show cause notice requiring completion of the work by the extended time, submitted its response expressing its inability to procure the balance transformers because of the price inflation by 70%. Accordingly, a meeting was held and it was resolved to short close the contract and invite fresh tenders. However, it is alleged that respondents attempted to encash the Bank Guarantee furnished by the petitioner, prompting the petitioner to file application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, and in terms of order dated 08.04.2024 passed in AA No.04/2024, the alleged action of the respondents was stayed. It is contended that owing to unforeseen circumstances that had arisen during Covid pandemic, the petitioner was unable to discharge his contractual obligations partially and as such falls within the ambit of the Force Majeure Clause. It is further stated that the respondents have not only sought to encash the bank guarantee but have also withheld a sum to the tune of Rs. 40,66,895/- towards the execution of the partial work. Thus, a dispute is stated to have arisen between the parties, constraining the petitioner to issue notice dated 12.05.2024 to the respondents seeking reference of the disputes to arbitration. But despite service of notice invoking arbitration clause 11 of the Letter of Allotment, 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. The respondents inter alia have taken a stand that no cause of action has accrued to the petitioner to approach this Court; that the petitioner has violated the terms of the agreement by effecting only partial supply; that the delay which has occurred in completion of the work is attributable to the petitioner; that the contract has been short closed and the payment for the executed work stands released in favour of the petitioner. The respondents have, accordingly, prayed that the petition be dismissed. 4. The existence of the arbitration clause, as aforesaid, and its invocation by the petitioner vide notice dated 12.05.2024is 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 application 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 parties shall be at liberty to set up all the pleas available to them under law before the learned Arbitrator. 7. Registry to send a copy of this order to the learned arbitrator. (ARUN PALLI) CHIEF JUSTICE Srinagar 29.08.2025 Abdul Qayoom, Secy. Abdul Qayoom Lone I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 01.09.2025 14:02