Sr. No. 1 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU CJ Court Case: Arb P No. 12/2026 Date of pronouncement: 20.02.2026 Uploaded on: .02.2026 M/S K K Enterprises …Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s) Through: Mr. Jugal Kishore, Advocate V/s Union of India & Ors. …. Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Vishal Sharma, Sr. Advocate (DSGI) with Mr. Eishan Dadhichi, CGSC. CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ORDER (ORAL) 01. The present petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the Act’) for appointment of an independent Arbitrator. 02. The petitioner–M/s K K Enterprises, being a Firm registered with the MES Department as Class E Contractor, enlisted to carry out the building and road works, low tension works, civil engineering and other related works, was found the lowest bidder while participating in the tendering process for the execution of the contract work, being CA No. GEN-56/2018-19:SPECIAL REPAIR OF LT PANEL, OH LINE ALONG WITH ALLIED WORK AT ASC AND PROVN OF WATER SUPPLY AT KLP AND DEF CEILING FANS UNDER GE NAGROTA. The petitioner was issued the Acceptance Letter No. 8514/GEN-56/2018-19/30/E8 and the Work Order No.1 dated March 30, 2019 wherein the cost of the contract work was fixed at ₹ 24,24,586.00/- and the date of commencement and completion was reflected as April 06, 2019 and October 05, 2019, respectively. It is submitted that after execution of the 50% of the work, for, the remaining building sites were not handed over, the petitioner vide letter dated December 11, 2019, requested the respondent no.3 regarding the same and for the payment of bills as also the first RAR. Which was not made due to shortage of funds, however, vide letter dated April 30, 2021 petitioner was proposed to foreclose the contract under condition 57 of IAFW-2249 and forward his written consent as regards the petitioner-firm shall not claim any compensation on account of profit or other advantage which might have been derived from the execution of the contract work. Though the petitioner vide letter dated June 14, 2021 submitted its consent. However, respondent no.3 in the meanwhile, unilaterally vide letter dated August 26, 2021, cancelled the contract and on July 28, 2023, informed that the Engineer-in-charge has already forwarded the case of the petitioner for foreclosure to the concerned Authorities. The petitioner protested the said cancellation of the contract and left with no other option invoked Clause 70 of the IAFW-2249 of the Contract for the appointment of the Arbitrator vide letter dated September 02, 2024. It is submitted that despite repeated requests the respondents did not cleared the pending bills. And, despite notice, the respondents failed to nominate their Arbitrator or respond. Owing to the rejection of the requests, the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court in terms of Section 11(6) of the Act. Hence, the petition at hand. 03. Heard. Notice. 04. Served with advance copy of the petition, Mr. Eishaan Dadhichi, learned Central Government Standing Counsel present in Court, accepts notice. 05. The existence of the arbitration clause, as aforesaid, and its invocation by the petitioner vide notice dated September 02, 2024, is not disputed. But learned counsel for the respondents denies the claim that is sought to be made by the petitioner. 06. However, having argued the matter at some length, learned counsel for the respondents, as always, fairly submits that let an arbitrator be appointed as the respondents shall raise all possible pleas/ objections before the 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. Sunil Gupta, (Retd.) S.E. (PWD) R&B, R/o 102, Sector-3, Channi Himmat, Jammu, Mobile No. 9419196592 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. 09. Disposed of. (ARUN PALLI) CHIEF JUSTICE Jammu 20.02.2026 Sunita SUNITA KOUL 2026.02.23 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document