Sr. No.09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU (Through Virtual Mode) Arb P No.86/2024 M/s A K Engineer and Contractor Pvt. Ltd. …Petitioner(s). Through: Mr. R. K. Gupta, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Udhay Baskar, Advocate. Vs. UT of J&K & Ors. ….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 being a Private Limited Company engaged in execution of civil contract works and registered under the Companies Act, 1956, participated in the bidding process initiated pursuant to e-NIT No.09 of 2016-17 followed by a corrigendum, by the respondents for “Design and Construction of 160 Mtr (4x40Mtr) Span Double lane PSC Girder Motorable bridge with both sides footpaths 1.2 Mtr wide over River Tawi at Panjpeer Badala Mang Rajouri under CRPF”. Post evaluation of the technical and financial bids, the contract valued at Rs.9,59,98,400/- was awarded in favour of the petitioner by the respondent no.4 vide his letter dated 11.04.2017. And the contract work was required to be completed within a period of 18 months. Accordingly, the men and machinery was mobilized, however, on account of the hindrances at the site of the work the work could not be started, causing immense losses to the petitioner company in the shape of idling of men and machinery at the site. After requests, the respondent corporation cleared the hurdles at the site and the petitioner completed the abutment work in the left side as well as the construction of three pillars for laying of the bridge which constituted around 45% of the total project work. It is stated that the further work could not be progressed as the construction site on the right side of the bridge including the area where the abutment was to be constructed was in the possession of the Army and the corporation was unable to get the same vacated. Facing this, a number of communications were sent to the respondent corporation highlighting the reasons for the stoppage of work and the huge losses suffered by the petitioner company. It is submitted that only a payment of Rs. 4,83,01,631/- against the work done has been released by the respondents and a sum of more than Rs. 20.00 lacs are unpaid so far. And, in the meanwhile, the respondents have foreclosed the contract vide order dated 30.04.2022. It is urged that owing to the foreclosure of the contract by the respondents, the right of the petitioner to earn the profit by executing the entire work has been put to naught and he is, thus, entitled to loss of profit to this extent of 15% of the balance contract amount. Besides, the petitioner company is also entitled to Rs. 20.00 lacs towards the work executed by the petitioner. A further claim of an amount of more than Rs. 5.00 crores is laid by the petitioner company owing to the idling of men and machinery at the site. It is stated that numerous requests were made by the petitioner for release of the payment against the work done and also the compensation for the losses suffered by it due to inaction of the respondents in providing the hurdle-free construction site. Thus, a dispute is stated to have arisen between the parties, constraining the petitioner to invoke Clauses 24 and 25 of the General Conditions of the Contract seeking settlement of claims as also appointment of an arbitrator in terms of legal notice dated 28.02.2023. It is urged that the Clause 24 of the GCC provides mechanism for resolution of disputes between the parties by the competent authority i.e., Managing Director, J&K PCC Ltd and failure to settle the claims/disputes of the parties within the stipulated time, the parties shall be referred to Arbitral Tribunal consisting of three Arbitrators, one each to be appointed/nominated by the employer and the contractor and third shall be chosen by the two Arbitrators so appointed by the parties and shall act as the Presiding Arbitrator. The petitioner, accordingly, in terms of the said Clause, proposed Er. Vinod Sharma, Commissioner (Retd) Govt. of J&K, to act as arbitrator on his behalf and requested the respondents to appoint an arbitrator on their behalf. Having failed to respond to the notice, the petitioner has approached this Court. Hence, the petition at hand. 04. Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court, the respondents though caused appearance but no reply/ response has been filed on their behalf. 05. The existence of the arbitration clause, as aforesaid, and its invocation by the petitioner vide letter dated 28.02.2023 is not disputed. 06. 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. 07. 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, Mr. Justice M. K. Hanjura, Former Judge High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, 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 respondents are at liberty to raise all the objections as regards the subject matter before the learned Arbitrator. 08. Registry to send a copy of this order to the learned arbitrator. (ARUN PALLI) CHIEF JUSTICE Srinagar 31.10.2025 Abdul Qayoom, Secy. Abdul Qayoom Lone I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 04.11.2025 12:13