[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Jammu & Kashmir High Court
M/S Vrc Constructions India Pvt. Ltd vs Union Of India And Anr on 10 April, 2026
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
CJ Court
Case: CM Nos. 1796-1797/2026 in
Arb P No. 96/2024
M/s VRC Constructions India Pvt. Ltd. ..... Petitioner(s)/non-applicant
Through: Ms. Nancy Mahajan, Advocate
Vs
Union of India and anr. .. Respondent(s)/applicants
Through: Mr. Vishal Sharma, Sr. Advocate (DSGI) with
Mr. Karan Sharma, CGSC.
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
ORDER
10.04.2026
The laconic facts outlining the background of the case are:
Seeking redressal of certain disputes arisen between the parties and being
aggrieved by the cancellation of a Contract-CA No. CEUZ/UDH/09/2010-AA,
M/s Vijeta Projects and Infrastructures Limited, approached this Court by way
of filing an Arbitration Petition, Arb P No. 26/2022 (M/s Vijeta Projects and
Infrastructures Limited vs. Union of India and ors.) seeking appointment of an
Arbitral Tribunal, in terms of Clause 70 of the GCC (IAFW-2249) read with
Clause 5 of the Special Conditions of the contract. And, this Court vide order
dated 09.02.2024 allowed the petition constituting an Arbitral Tribunal to
resolve the dispute between the parties in terms of Clause 70 of the GCC,
which was subsequently amended to the effect that the amount involved was
more than ₹ 100.00 crore, hence, the disputes were required to be referred to an
Arbitral Tribunal consisting of three arbitrators. Notwithstanding the sole
arbitrator provision previously envisaged in the Contract.
After cancellation, the contract (ibid.) was awarded to the present
petitioner/non-applicant - M/s VRC Constructions India Pvt. Ltd. for the
remaining work.
M/s VRC Constructions India -the petitioner, also upon the accrual of
certain disputes, and subsequent to the failure of amicable settlement, initiated
an arbitration petition, pursuant to the agreement, being Arb P No. 96/2024,
which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 19.12.2025, inadvertently
adopting the amended Clause 70 of the GCC providing for referring of a
dispute arisen between the parties to an Arbitral Tribunal, in lieu of the Clause
70, reflected within the new Agreement CA No. CEUZ/UDH/07/2021-22 dated
November 01.2021, envisaging the reference of the dispute to the sole
arbitrator only.
Hence, the present application has been moved by the applicant-Union of
India for modification of order dated 19.12.2025 and substitution of the
Arbitral Tribunal by the sole arbitrator dispensed in the new agreement.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and for the reasons set out
in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed.
Consequently, the order dated 19.12.2025 is rectified to the extent it
records in paragraph no. 04 as :
"04. 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, two arbitrator for the Arbitral Tribunal
comprising of the following members are hereby appointed:
A) Mr. Satish Chander, Additional Director General, Retd.
MES R/o Lane No. 4, Greater Kailash, Jammu;
B) Mr. Raj Kumar Sarkar, Retd. Chief Engineer, Railways Flat
No. 203, Tower 5, Common Wealth Games Villages, Delhi-
110092.
Both of the appointed arbitrators shall appoint the Presiding
Arbitrator constituting the Arbitral Tribunal. The Arbitral
Tribunal 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 same shall be now read and substituted with:
"04. 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. Arvind Kumar Arora, DG (Pers) MES
Department, 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.:"
Necessary correction in the order be accordingly carried out.
Application stands disposed of.
In light of the order passed on this even date in CM No. 1796/2026, the
operation of impugned order dated 19.12.2025 passed in Arb P No. 96/2024
shall remain stayed, pending the newly appointed arbitrator entering upon the
reference.
Application stands disposed of.
(ARUN PALLI)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Jammu
10.04.2026
Sunita
