Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Sr. No vs Union Of Indian And Ors on 30 January, 2026
Sr. No. 1
-
2026:JKLHC-JMU:115
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
CJ Court
Case: Arb P No. 2/2026
Date of pronouncement: 30.01.2026
Uploaded on:31.01.2026
M/s K K Enterprises. ...Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s)
Through: Mr. Jugal Kishore Gupta, Advocate.
V/s
Union of Indian and ors. .... Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Vishal Sharma, Sr. Advocate (DSGI) with
Mr. Sumant Sudan, Advocate.
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') seeking appointment of an independent Arbitrator,
01. The petitioner- a Firm registered with MES Department as Class E contractor, was awarded a Contract CA No. CWE/JA-75/2017-18:PROVN OF KENEEL FOR 06 ARMY DOGS IN ARMY DOG UNIT, GUARD POST WITH GUARD REST ROOM WITH TOILET FACILITY AT CZW AND PROVN OF ACCN FOR PLANT REPAIR BAY WITH APRON SHED FOR WASHING POINT AND ALLIED INFRASTRURE AT ENGR PLANT UNIT UNDER GE NAGROTA AS DETAINED IN TENDER ENQUIRY PUBLISHED ON 06 NOV 2017 VIDE TENDER ID NO 2016 MES 93798 2 vide letter dated December 15, 2017. The cost of contract work was fixed at ₹ 39,05,570/-. After execution of the contract between the parties Work order no. 01(F) dated December 27, 2017 was issued by Garrison Engineer-respondent no.4. The petitioner commenced the work after the handing over of the partial sites by the department. However, for, the hindrance free sites were not handed over to the petitioner Firm and even the site for the buildings were falling on the filled up soil for treacherous organization, vide letter dated 15.02.2018 respondent no.4 was conveyed that the soil testing was essential. It is submitted that the part drawings were furnished to the petitioner firm and the Page 1 of 3
-
2026:JKLHC-JMU:115 Engineer In-charge on 03.07.2018 directed the petitioner to execute the contract work. Vide letter dated 17.09.2018 the petitioner firm was informed about the stoppage of work in terms of the decision taken in the meeting held on 15.09.2018. However, on the request made by the petitioner -Firm on 03.11.2018 for extension of time upto 30.12.2018, release of payments of the executed work and handing over the balance sites, the petitioner received a letter on 11.01.2019 instructing the petitioner to start the work for which the extension was granted up to 30.11.2018. The petitioner Firm could not complete the work within the stipulated period, hence the extension was granted upto 31.07.2021 in terms of the decision taken in a meeting held on 19.01.2021 whereby certain amendments were also made in the contract agreement and conveyed to the petitioner vide letter dated 20.02.2021. It is contended that the petitioner vide letter dated 20.07.2021 submitted the 6th RAR for the release of payment for the executed work as also for extension of the period for completion of work but same was not accepted. However, vide letter dated 27.09.2021 the work order was cancelled with a direction that the works as defined in the contract condition 1(c) of the GCC will be completed through other agency at the risk and cost of the petitioner-Firm. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed a petition, File No. 52/2021, (M/s K K Enterprises vs. Union of India and ors.) under Section 9 of the Act before the learned Additional District Judge (Consumer Court) Jammu who stayed the operation of the impugned order to the extent of getting the balance work executed at the risk and cost of the petitioner Firm. And, subsequently, on 13.04.2023 the said order was made absolute till the appointment of the Arbitrator and entering upon reference by him,. The petitioner thereafter vide letter dated 29.12.2023 invoked Clause 70 of the IAFW-2249 requesting the respondents to appoint an arbitrator for settlement of the disputes that arose between the parties.
02. It is urged that since the respondents, despite the repeated requests neither agreed for settlement of the disputes through arbitration nor directed appointment of an arbitrator. Hence, the petition at hand.
03. Heard. Notice.
04. Served with advance copy of the petition, Mr. Sumant Sudan, learned counsel, present in Court, accepts notice.
Page 2 of 3-
2026:JKLHC-JMU:115
05. The existence of the arbitration clause and its invocation by the petitioner vide notice dated 29.12.2023, is not disputed. But learned counsel for the respondents vehemently disputes/denied the claim that is sought to be made by the petitioner being apparently misconceived and time barred.
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 respondent shall 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. S C Thukral, Retd. Executive Engineer, MES, 88 BC Road Rehari Chungi, Jammu 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 Jammu 30.01.2026 Sunita.
Page 3 of 3