HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU CJ Court Case: Arb P No. 27/2026 Date of Pronouncement : 24.04.2025 Uploaded on: 24 .04.2025 Shapoorji Pallonji and Company Pvt. Ltd. ….. Appellant/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Satinder Gupta, Advocate. Vs Jammu Development Authority th. Its Vice Chairman, Jammu. .…. Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Atul Verma, Advocate. CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ORDER 24.04.2026 (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 concise facts, as projected by the petitioner are: The petitioner- Company, being a successful bidder, was issued a Letter of Intent (04.08.2015) as also the Letter of Award (29.09.2015) followed by the execution of the Engineering, Procurement and Construction-cum- Turnkey Agreement (EPC) dated 14.03.2016. And, was requested for Qualification-cum- Request for Proposal (QRFP) for designing Engineering, Procurement and Construction of General Bust State-cum-multilevel Car Parking-cum- Commercial Complex at Jammu on Turnkey basis. Beyond the enumerated project disruptions—comprising 240 KLD STP approval delays, sludge shortage, site access impediments by third-party vendors, lack of temporary power, shop demolition, and Force Majeure -like disruptions from the Article 370 developments, Strikes etc, the project suffered a critical, premature failure to provide the complete Right of Way (RoW). Sr. No. 4 Contrary to the contractual stipulation of 30 days post-commencement, full RoW was not granted until 16.05.2018. In consequence of the aforementioned disruptions, which severely impeded the scheduled progress, the Petitioner submitted an application for an extension of time. Pursuant to the express provisions governing the contract, the absence of a response or notification from the respondent within a 90-day period, rendered a deemed approval by the Project Engineer. Thereafter, on its partial completion, the project was inaugurated on 11.02.2021 and after submission of its Final Bill on 05.05.2022, the petitioner on 17.10.2022 requested for approval of EOT. Notwithstanding exhaustive deliberations and correspondence between the parties from 19.01.2024 to 28.07.2024, the respondents remained recalcitrant in addressing the petitioner’s grievances. The petitioner also requested for amicable resolution on multiple occasions vide letters dated 05.11.2024, 22.11.2024, 30.01.2025 and 065.06.2025 pursuant to Article 17.1 of the EPC. Due to the respondents’ failure to satisfy the admitted final bill, the petitioner on 28.11.2025, invoked the Arbitration Clause contained in the Agreement to appoint the arbitrator for resolution of the dispute arisen between the parties. Article 17.1 (Amicable Resolution) and 17.2 (Arbitration Agreement) of the EPC Agreement are reproduced here for reference: ‘17.1 Amicable Resolution 17.1.1. Save where expressly stated to the contrary in this Agreement, any dispute, difference or controversy of whatever nature between the Parties, howsoever arising under, out of or in relation to this Agreement (the “Dispute”) shall in the first instance be attempted to be resolved amicably in accordance with the procedure set in sub-article 17.1.2 below. 17.1.2 Either Party may require such Dispute to be referred to the Secretary, Urban to GoJ&K and the Chief Executive Officer of the Contractor for the time being, for amicable settlement. Upon such reference, the two shall meet at the earliest mutual convenience and in any event within 15 days of such reference to discuss and attempt to amicably settled within 15 (fifteen) days of such meeting between the two, either Party may refer the Dispute to arbitration in accordance with provisions of Article 17.2 below. “17.2 Arbitration 17.2.1 Subject to the provisions of Article 17.1, any Dispute which is not resolved amicably shall be finally settled by binding arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act). The arbitration shall be by a panel of three arbitrators, one to be appointed by each Party and the third to be appointed by the two arbitrators appointed by the Parties. The Party requiring arbitration shall appoint an arbitrator in writing, inform the other Party about such appointment and call upon the other Party to appoint its arbitrator. If within 15 days of receipt of such intimation the other Party fails to appoint its arbitrator, the Party seeking appointment of arbitrator may take further steps in accordance with Arbitration Act.” It is further averred that notwithstanding the consistent efforts to amicably settle the dispute arisen between the parties, the outstanding final dues remained unpaid. Hence, on account of nonfeasance from the respondents, the present petition. 03. Heard. Notice. 04. Served with advance copy of the petition, Mr. Atul Verma, learned counsel for the respondents, present in Court, accepts notice. 05. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently disputes/denies the claim that is sought to be made by the petitioner being apparently misconceived and untenable. However, the existence of the arbitration clause, as aforesaid, and its invocation by the petitioner vide notice dated 28.11.2025, is not disputed. Accordingly, it is urged that let an arbitrator be appointed and the respondents be granted liberty to raise all possible pleas/ objections before the arbitrator in this regard. 06. Accordingly, in the wake of the position sketched out above and in terms of the statements made by the learned counsel for the parties, as also the clause contained in the agreement itself, the petition is allowed. 07. With consent of learned counsel for the parties, Sh. Muzaffar Hussain Attar, (Former Judge of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, Mobile No. 9419000940) 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 24.04.2026 Sunita