Sr. No.04 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR Arb P No.36/2024 M/s RODIC Consultants Pvt. Ltd. …Petitioner(s)/Appellants. Through: Dr. Ms. Misha Kumar, Advocate (Through VC) Mr. Shah Aamir, Advocate. Vs. Union Territory of J&K and others. ….Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Faheem Nissar Shah, GA. Mr. T. M. Shamsi, DSGI, with Ms. Rehana Qayoom, Assisting Counsel. CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE O R D E R 05.06.2025 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 multi-disciplinary infrastructure consulting engineering company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, participated in the bidding process initiated by respondent no.2 on 07.02.2018 for appointment of Project Management Agency for “Project Management Services for handholding of the project from concept to commissioning up to final execution for SAUBHAGYA (Pradhan Mantri Sahaj Bijli Har Ghar Yojna) for Jammu & Kashmir province including Ladakh of Jammu and Kashmir State”. Post evaluation of the technical and financial bids, letter of intent (LOI) was issued in favour of the petitioner by respondent no.2 on 25.04.2018. Whereupon, the petitioner accepted the letter of intent. And, accordingly, a contract agreement was entered into between the parties on 14.06.2018 with a value of INR 12,50,06,066/- for a period of eighteen months. The petitioner having raised invoices totalling INR 19,93,59,326 is stated to have received only INR 4,46,34,887/- till filing the present petition. It is stated that the contract period of 18 months was expiring on 13.12.2019, the petitioner, accordingly, requested for extension of the contract period. But owing to non-consideration of the request for extension, the petitioner intimated the respondents about demobilization of his resources and staff members. A number of requests are stated to have been made by the petitioner for release of the balance amount but the respondents failed to respond. And the petitioner was, thus, constrained to issue notice dated 17.04.2024 invoking the arbitration clause 21 of the contract. Further, it is submitted that, despite service of the said notice, 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 the 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 the petitioner himself had committed breach of the contract. Though, it is not disputed that the contract that was entered into between the parties provides for determination of the dispute by way of arbitration. 4. The existence of the arbitration clause, as aforesaid, and its invocation by the petitioner vide notice dated 17.04.2024 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 application is allowed. Accordingly, with consent of learned counsel for the parties, Mr. Justice D. K. Jain, Former Judge of the Supreme Court of India, 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 05.06.2025 Abdul Qayoom, Secy.