Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Sr.No. 08 vs Union Of India And Others on 27 February, 2026
Sr.No. 08
2026:JKLHC-JMU:571
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
CJ Court
Case No. : Arb P No. 16/2026
Date of Pronouncement : 27.02.2026
Uploaded on: 27.02.2026
M/s D.S. Constructions ..... Appellant/Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Jugal Kishore, Advocate with
Ms. Ishna Vaid, Advocate
Vs
Union of India and others ..... Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Vishal Sharma, DSGI
Coram: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
ORDER
27.02.2026 (ORAL)
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 is a partnership firm duly enlisted with MES department as "A" class contractor and is engaged in the business executing civil and other allied works for over 15 years. The petitioner firm is duly registered with the Registrar of Firms and the petition is being filed through Sh. Diljeet Singh Sachdeva, who is one of the partners of the petitioner firm. It is submitted that the contract work bearing CA No. CEAFU-32/2017-18: Const. of Pree-Feb Shelter for Single Living and Office Accn at Base Camp at AF Stn. Thoise came to be allotted to the petitioner firm by the respondent No.3 vide sanction letter No. 85020/CEAFU-32/50/E8 dated 05.10.2018 for the contract work of Rs.2,87,71,300.05. That the Garrisons Engineer (AF) Thoise vide his letter/communication No. 8190/CEAFU-22/2018-19/32/E8 dated 20.04.2019 confirmed the changes/deviations in the execution of the contract work with regard to the wind speed, roof slope and for foundation and also informed that the extra cost incurred by the petitioner firm for the aforesaid changes/deviations shall be paid separately. It is submitted that the petitioner firm thereafter executed and completed the contract work and after its completion, the petitioner firm Arb P No. 16/2026 Page 1 of 3 2026:JKLHC-JMU:571 handed over the same to the department in November, 2022 and thereafter the completion certificate came to be issued by the GE (AF) Thoise vide his letter No. 8190/CEAFU-22/2018-19/165/E8 dated 28.11.2022. The petitioner firm also thereafter rectified the minor defects as pointed out in the completion certificate.
3. It is further submitted that after the completion of the contract work, the petitioner firm submitted its final bill/RAR inclusive of the extra cost incurred on account of the deviations with regard to change in wind speed, roof slope and foundation. The final bill/RAR was duly accompanied with calculations and design reports and the department, however, made the payment of Rs.9.60 lac only to the petitioner firm against the final RAR of Rs.59,53,089.09 which was protested by the petitioner firm.
4. It is further submitted that when the balance payment of the executed contract work was not released by the department despite repeated requests and reminders, the petitioner firm vide its letter dated 10.10.2023 requested the department to release the due payment of RAR/Final bill within 15 days of the receipt of the letter failing which the said letter be treated as notice for Arbitration under Clause 70 of IAFW-2249 of MES General Conditions of Contract. That the HQ Chief Engineer (AF) Zone vide his letter dated 22.12.2023 informed the petitioner firm that the deviation on account of roof slope has been approved but the deviation with regard to wind speed 47 m/sec to 55 m/sec is not admissible.
5. That the respondents despite the receipt of letter dated 10.10.2023, neither finalized the final bill nor made the payment of the works/additional works executed by the petitioner firm nor bothered to respond to the same.
6. Further, it is submitted that the disputes thus having arisen between the parties with regard to the execution of the aforesaid contract work and payment thereof, the petitioner vide legal notice dated 16.11.2025 invoked clause 70 of IAFW-2249 and requested the respondent No.2 to refer the disputes/claims of the petitioner firm to the arbitration by appointing an independent Sole Arbitrator within 30 days of the receipt of legal notice.
7. It is submitted that the respondents thus despite having received the legal notice dated 16.11.2025 have failed to refer the claims/disputes to the petitioner firm to an independent arbitrator.
Arb P No. 16/2026 Page 2 of 32026:JKLHC-JMU:571
8. It is urged that since the respondent, despite notice dated 16.11.2025, neither agreed for settlement of the disputes through arbitration nor directed appointment of an arbitrator. Hence, the petition at hand.
9. Heard. Notice.
10. Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court, the respondents though caused appearance but no reply/response has been filed on their behalf.
11. The existence of the arbitration clause, as aforesaid, and its invocation by the petitioner vide notice dated 16.11.2025 is not disputed.
12. Thus, having argued the matter at some length and 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.
13. In the given facts and circumstances, coupled with statement made at the Bar by learned counsel for the respondents, the petition is allowed. Accordingly, with consent of learned counsel for the parties, Mr. Satish Chandra, Additional Director General (Retd), R/o H.No. 89, Lane No.4, Greater Kailash, Jammu- 180011 (Mobile No. 9417256367) 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.
14. Registry to send a copy of this order to the learned arbitrator.
( (ARUN PALLI)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Jammu :
27.02.2026
Pawan Chopra/Secy
Arb P No. 16/2026 Page 3 of 3