Sr. No.13 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU (Through Virtual Mode) Arb P No.9/2025 M/s TBA Infrastructure Private Limited. …Petitioner. Through: Mr. R. K. Gupta, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Uday Bhaskar, Advocate. Vs. UT of J and K and others. ….Respondent(s) Through: Ms. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG. CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE O R D E R 31.10.2025 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 having participated in the tendering process initiated by the respondents, vide e-NIT No. 153 of 2015-16 dated 18.02.2016, and having been declared as successful tenderer was, vide letter dated 08.01.2017, allotted work “IMPROVEMENT & UP-GRADATION OF KOTERANKA-KHAWAS ROAD KM 1ST TO 30.20TH BY WAY OF EARTH WORK IN CUTTING/ FILLING, CONSTRUCTION OF 02 NOS SINGLE LANE MOTORABLE PLATE GIRDER BRIDGES & 03 NOS DOUBLE LANE MOTORABLE PLATE GIRDER BRIDGES, RCC BOX TYPE CULVERTS, PROTECTION WORKS, GSB, WMM AND PROVIDING/ LAYING 25 MM THICK SDBC OVER 50 MM THICK BM AND RIGID PAVEMENT IN STRETCHES” for an amount of Rs.54,49,90,400/-. Subsequently, a formal agreement was executed between the parties on 18.12.2017, indicating the date of commencement of the work and its completion as 15.02.2017 and 15.02.2020, respectively. It is submitted that during the execution of the contract, additional works came to be allotted enhancing the cost of work by Rs.1360.77 lacs, making the total cost of the contract as Rs.6810.67 lacs. After allotment of the work, the petitioner mobilized his resources for execution of the work but respondents failed to discharge their contractual obligations like handing over of the site resulting in prolongation of the contract leading to losses suffered by the petitioner. The work also got delayed due to paucity of the funds by the respondents and by the end of 2019, against the work done to the tune of Rs.17,05,65,000/-, a payment of Rs.11,19,65,000/- only is stated to have been released in favour of the petitioner. It is further submitted that owing to the prolongation of the contract, the petitioner suffered losses on account of profit, idleness of machinery and labour, overhead expenses, escalation of prices of all the commodities etc. Accordingly, the petitioner invoked Clause 24 of the General Conditions of the Contract on 23.07.2018 seeking decision of the competent authority [Chief Engineer, PW(R&B) Department, Jammu], with regard to the claims raised by the petitioner. The competent authority, after a long delay, on 06.05.2023 held a meeting and most of the claims raised by the petitioner are stated to have been rejected. Being dis-satisfied with the decision of the competent authority, the petitioner, vide communication dated 20.06.2023, invoked arbitration Clause 24.4, nominating Sh. Parvez Fazali, Retd. Superintending Engineer, PW (R&B) Department, Srinagar, as its arbitrator and requested the department to nominate its arbitrator. The said request was reiterated on 17.01.2024 and on 24.07.2024. However, during the process the petitioner completed the contract work and a completion certificate dated 24.04.2024 stands issued, but despite completion of the work and submitting final bill on 25.07.2024, the respondents not only failed to release the disputed amount, but they also failed to release the admitted amounts against the work done to the tune of Rs.6,47,98,493/-. Owing to the failure of the respondents to act in the matter despite invoking arbitration clause in terms of communication dated 20.06.2023, the petitioner has been left with no choice but to approached this court. Hence, the petition at hand. 3. Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court, the respondents though caused appearance but no reply/ response has been filed on their behalf. 4. The existence of the arbitration clause, as aforesaid, and its invocation by the petitioner vide letter dated 20.06.2023 is not disputed. 5. Thus, in the given circumstances, learned counsel for the respondents, as always, fairly submits that let an arbitrator be appointed. But since the claim that is sought to be made by the petitioner is vehemently disputed/ denied, it is submitted that respondents be granted liberty to raise all possible pleas/ objections before the arbitral tribunal/ arbitrator in this regard. 6. Accordingly, in the wake of the position sketched out above and in terms of the statements made by the learned counsel for the parties, the petition is allowed. And, with consent of learned counsel for the parties, Arbitral Tribunal comprising of the flowing members is hereby constituted: (I) Mr. Justice Tashi Rabstan, Former Chief Justice of High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, residing at Plot No.2, Lane No.13, Tawhi Vihar, Sidhra, Jammu-180019, Mobile No.9419266111 (Presiding Arbitrator). (II) Mr. S. K. Gupta, Additional Director General (Retd.), R/o Lane no.10, Greater Kailash, Jammu, Mob. No.9419045689 (Arbitrator). (III) Mr. Parvez Fazali, Retd. Superintending Engineer, PW (R&B), Department, Srinagar, Mob. No.7006933130 (Arbitrator). The Arbitral Tribunal shall proceed in 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 respondents are at liberty to raise all the objections as regards the subject matter before the learned Arbitrator. 7. Registry to send a copy of this order to the learned arbitrators. (ARUN PALLI) CHIEF JUSTICE Srinagar 31.10.2025 Abdul Qayoom, Secy. Abdul Qayoom Lone I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 06.11.2025 11:30