Arb.P No.90/2025 Page 1 of 7 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Case No: Arb P. No. 90/2025. Uploaded on:19.05.2026 M/s Sharat Puri Contractor, Govt. Contractors and Builders, 227, Sector No.1, Trikmuta Nagar, Jammu through its Partner Shri karan Puri, aged 32 years, S/O Shri Sharat Puri R/O 227, Sector No.1, Trikuta nagar, Jammu. …Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s) Through: Mr. R.K.Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Udhay Bhaskar, Advocate. Vs. 1. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir through its Commissioner Secretary, PWD (R&B), Civil Secretariat, Jammu. 2. Chief Engineer, PWD (R&B) Peer Panjal, Rajouri. 3. Executive Engineer, PWD (R&B), Division, Rajouri. …. Respondent(s) Through: Ms. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG with Ms. Sagira Jaffar, Advocate. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE ORDER 15.05.2026 1. Through the medium of present petition, the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of an independent Arbitrator. Arb.P No.90/2025 Page 2 of 7 2. As per the case of the petitioner, it is a partnership firm duly registered with the Registrar of Firms, and Shri Sharat Puri is one of its partners and is, thus, competent to file the present petition and pursue the case. 3. Pursuant to e-NIT No. 20 of 2014-15 dated 27.08.2014, a contract for the construction of District Office Complex G+2 (three-storeyed) at Rajouri was allotted to the petitioner firm vide communication No. CEJ/G/11097-11098 dated 18.10.2014, for a contract value of Rs. 7,20,68,937/-. Pursuant to allotment of the contract, Agreement No. 05/OW-A of 2014-15 dated 26.12.2014 came to be executed between the petitioner firm and respondent No. 3. The date of commencement of the work was fixed as 25.10.2014, and the date of completion was fixed as 25.04.2016. 4. According to the petitioner, after deploying men and machinery at the site, the construction work was commenced. However, respondent No. 3, under the instructions of the District Development Commissioner, Rajouri, directed the petitioner to suspend the work till 23.12.2014. Thereafter, on 25.12.2014, the District Development Commissioner, Rajouri verbally instructed the petitioner firm to resume the work. Again, vide communication dated 24.04.2015, respondent No. 3 directed the petitioner to stop further execution of the work. 5. It is further submitted that vide communication dated 11.05.2015, the petitioner requested respondent No. 3 to settle an amount of Rs. 40.61 lakhs towards the expenditure incurred on mobilization advance. It has also been submitted that respondent No. 3, vide communication Arb.P No.90/2025 Page 3 of 7 dated 15.05.2015, requested the Superintending Engineer, PWD (R&B) Circle, Rajouri, to authorize completion of one block of the building up to the functional level. In the said communication, it was also intimated that the petitioner had submitted a bill amounting to Rs. 40.61 lakhs on account of advance payments made to the suppliers towards mobilization advance and allied expenses. 6. According to the petitioner, repeated representations were made to the respondents seeking resumption of the contract work; however, no decision was taken by the respondents. It is stated that vide communication dated 05.04.2019, the petitioner requested respondent No. 2 to take a decision regarding resumption of the work, which request was reiterated vide communication dated 28.08.2019. However, no response was received from the respondents. Thereafter, vide communication dated 07.02.2020, the petitioner is stated to have once again highlighted the issue concerning the losses suffered by it on account of the prolonged pendency of the decision regarding either resumption of the contract work or termination of the contract. 7. It has further been submitted that the respondents issued fresh e-NIT No. 8 of 2024-25 dated 27.05.2024, inviting expression of interest for the very same work which had earlier been allotted to the petitioner, though at a different location. Upon acquiring knowledge of the same, the petitioner addressed a detailed communication dated 01.07.2024 to respondent No. 2. Simultaneously, the petitioner invoked Clause 24.1 of the SBD/General Conditions of Contract and requested the Chief Engineer for resolution of the pending disputes. However, no response was received from the respondents, from which it can reasonably be Arb.P No.90/2025 Page 4 of 7 inferred that the competent authority has failed to take any decision within 45 days from the date of receipt of the request for resolution of disputes. 8. It has further been submitted that, vide email dated 12.12.2024, the petitioner invoked Clause 25(1) of the SBD/General Conditions of Contract and requested that the disputes/claims of the petitioner firm be referred to the Arbitral Tribunal. However, despite the aforesaid email dated 12.12.2024, the disputes have not been referred to the Arbitral Tribunal by the respondents. Hence, the present petition. 9. The respondents have filed objections to the petition, wherein it has been submitted that the disputes raised by the petitioner are premature and are not arbitrable at this stage, as the matter involves administrative decisions and issues relating to execution of government work, which require examination at the departmental level. It has further been submitted that the pre-conditions for invocation of the arbitration agreement have not been fulfilled by the petitioner. 10. On merits, it has been submitted that during the execution of the work, certain administrative issues arose with regard to the project site, as the land in question was under consideration by the Government for transfer and approval by the competent authorities. In view of these developments, the higher authorities issued directions advising that the construction work should not proceed until a final decision regarding the land was taken. It has further been submitted that the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu vide communication dated 25.03.2025, advised that it would not be appropriate to proceed with Arb.P No.90/2025 Page 5 of 7 the construction work at the site till a final decision regarding transfer of the land was taken by the Government. Thus, the execution of the work was affected due to the reasons beyond the control of the respondents. 11. Heard and considered. 12. So far as the existence of the arbitration agreement contained in Clause 25 of the General Conditions of Contract is concerned, the same is not in dispute. As per the said clause, either party has the option to refer the decision of the competent authority to arbitration within twenty-eight days from the date of the competent authority’s written decision. The clause further provides that in cases where the initial contract price, as mentioned in the letter of acceptance, is Rs. 5 crores or below, the dispute or difference in respect whereof the competent authority has rendered a decision shall be referred to a sole arbitrator. However, where the initial contract price exceeds Rs. 5 crores, the dispute is required to be referred to an Arbitral Tribunal comprising three arbitrators, one each to be appointed by the Employer and the contractor, and the third to be chosen by the two arbitrators so appointed, who shall act as the Presiding Arbitrator. 13. It has been pleaded by the petitioner that when the respondents issued fresh e-NIT No. 8 of 2024-25 dated 27.05.2024 inviting expression of interest, the petitioner addressed a detailed communication dated 01.07.2024, inter alia, invoking Clause 24.1 of the SBD/General Conditions of Contract and made a request to the competent authority, i.e., the Chief Engineer, for resolution of the pending disputes. However, no decision was taken by the competent authority, which Arb.P No.90/2025 Page 6 of 7 compelled the petitioner to invoke the arbitration clause contained in Clause 25(1) of the SBD/General Conditions of Contract by making a request for reference of the disputes/claims to the Arbitral Tribunal. This aspect of the matter has not been disputed by the respondents. The pleadings of the parties clearly disclose that disputes have arisen between them relating to the contract executed between the parties. Therefore, in order to determine the said disputes, an Arbitrator is required to be appointed, particularly when the appointing authority has failed to appoint the arbitrator in terms of the covenants of the arbitration clause. 14. In view of the above, the petition is allowed and, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, Shri Varinder Singh Bhau, Former District Judge, J&K Higher Judicial Service appointed as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes and differences between the parties arising out of and in connection with the agreement referred to above. 15. A copy of this order shall be communicated to the learned Sole Arbitrator by the Registry of this Court within a period of fifteen (15) days from today, and the learned Arbitrator is requested to forward the “Statutory Statement of Disclosures” under Section 11(8) read with Section 12(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to the parties within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 16. The parties shall appear before the learned Sole Arbitrator on the date and at the place to be fixed by him. It is further directed that all arbitration costs and the fees of the Arbitral Tribunal shall be borne Arb.P No.90/2025 Page 7 of 7 equally by the parties and shall remain subject to the final award that may be passed by the learned Arbitrator in relation to the costs. 17. Disposed of. (Sanjay Dhar) Judge Jammu 15.05.2026 Madan Verma-Secy Whether order is speaking? Yes Whether order is reportable? No MADAN LAL VERMA 2026.05.19 18:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document