Sr. No.07 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR Arb P No.36/2026 M/s Kashcon Contruction Company …Petitioner(s). Through: Mr. Javaid Ahmad, Advocate. Vs. Union of India and another. ….Respondent(s) Through: Mr. T. M. Shamsi, DSGI, with Ms. Faizan Ahmad Ganai, Assisting Counsel. CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE O R D E R 25.09.2026 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 the enlisted contractor with the Military Engineering Service was awarded contract work “Provision of Water Supply Scheme at Dawar Garrison” vide letter dated 11.08.2020. The date of completion as provided in the work order was 24.04.2024. However, the delay has caused in completion of the work because of the omissions and commissions on the part of the respondents and the respondents have proceeded to cancel the contract vide communication dated 10.01.2026. Consequently, the respondents sought forfeiture/ appropriation of the performance security and initiated action for completion of the balance work through another agency at the risk and cost of the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner approached the court of Additional District Judge, Srinagar, under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, however, before disposal of the said application, the petitioner invoked the arbitration clause contained in the agreement and served a notice dated 11.05.2026 seeking appointment of an arbitrator. However, because of the inaction on the part of the respondents, the petitioner has filed the present petition. 3. Heard. Notice. 4. Served with advance copy of the petition, Mr. Faizan Ahmad Ganai, Assisting Counsel to Mr. T. M. Shamsi, DSGI, present in Court, accepts notice. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently disputes/denies the claim that is sought to be made by the petitioner. It is urged that the claim of the petitioner is apparently misconceived and untenable, and thus deserves to be rejected. However, the existence of the arbitration clause, as aforesaid, and its invocation by the petitioner is not disputed. He, accordingly, submits that let an arbitrator be appointed but the respondents be granted liberty to raise all possible pleas in this regard before the arbitrator. 5. Accordingly, in the wake of the position sketched out above and in terms of the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondents, the petition is allowed. And, with consent of learned counsel for the parties, Mr. Raj Kumar Sarkar, CE, Railways, 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 possible pleas/ objections as regards the subject matter before the learned Arbitrator. 6. Registry to send a copy of this order to the learned arbitrator (DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI) CHIEF JUSTICE Srinagar 25.09.2026 Abdul Qayoom, Secy. Abdul Qayoom Lone I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 28.09.2026 12:45