[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Des Raj Nagpal Contractors Pvt. Ltd vs Union Of India And Anr on 10 April, 2026
Sr. No. 1
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
CJ Court
Case: Arb P No. 25/2026
Des Raj Nagpal Contractors Pvt. Ltd. ..... Appellant/Petitioner(s)
Through: Ms. Nancy Mahajan, Advocate.
Vs
Union of India and anr. ..... Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Vishal Sharma, Sr. Advocate (DSGI) with
Mr. Karan Sharma, CGSC.
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
ORDER
10.04.2026
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 petitioner, a Company, carrying the business of Military Engineering
Services (MES), was allotted a contract bearing No. CA No. CEPZ-25/2019-20
(subsequently amended as CEPZ-12/2021-22) for the project of "Provision of
Tech Sehd OtmAccn and Swts at Birupr Ratnuchak" having contract value
of ₹1,42,98,600.00 accepted by the Chief Engineer Pathankote zone on
31.03.2022. Work Order No. 1F was issued on 20.06.2022 by the Garrison
Engineer Project Jammu establishing the date of commencement as 05.07.2022
and the date of completion as 04.07.2023. The petitioner completed the awarded
work besides completing the additional works as directed by the Garrison
Engineer and the Completion Certificate in this behalf was issued on
10.07.2023. Initially, on 05.08.2023 intimation with regard to formal Pre final
bill, final RAR and comprehensive final bill was given to the concerned
Engineer in-charge, thereafter, submitting the formal Final bill on 09.08.2023
for the clearance of the requisite dues. Which was retuned unsanctioned on
11.03.2024. Vide letter dated 21.08.2023, the petitioner requested to treat the
pre-final bill and final bills as 'signed under protest', as also vide letter dated
05.09.2023, for providing a copy of the final bill forwarded to HQ CEPZ. On
14.09.2023, the respondents while intimating the petitioner that the final bill had
been forwarded to CEPZ, issued a communication dated 06.10.2025 amending
the contract agreement agency from GE(P) Jammu to GE Kaluchak unilaterally.
The petitioner on 26.12.2023 requested the respondents to appoint the arbitrator
for resolution of the dispute arisen between the parties on account of non-
payment of the bill amount as also on vide letters dated 22.02.2024 and
03.04.2024, information was furnished about the total outstanding amount of
₹ 3,17,861.72. Respondents on 11.03.2024 returned the final bill unsanctioned
with a request to the petitioner to resubmit the final bill separately in duplicate
for Part-A denoted as AGREED PART and Part-B as DISPUTED PART, to
which protest was raised by the petitioner on 18.03.2024. On account of the
said dispute of non-payment of final bill by the respondent, the petitioner
invoked Condition 70 of GCC (IAFW-2249-1989) already contained in the
Agreement, vide letters dated 19.02.2025 and 28.04.2025 as also seeking
appointment of an arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties,
though the respondents omitted to act. However, it is submitted that out of the
total outstanding dues, vide Payment Order issued through PCDA (NC) Jammu
bearing Voucher Number 56/1030/BR-II(P) dated 09.08.2025 ₹ 2,06,372.00,
was processed in favour of the petitioner. 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. Karan Sharma, learned
Central Government Standing Counsel, 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 notices dated 19.02.2025
and 28.04.2025, is not disputed.Accordingly,
itisurgedthatletanarbitratorbeappointedand 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. Rajinder Paul
Singhal, Additional Director General Retd, MES R/o B-380 Chandi
Mandir Cantt,-134107, 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
10.04.2026
Sunita
SUNITA KOUL
2026.04.16 14:59
integrity of this document
