M/S K K Enterprises vs Union Of India & Ors
2026 Latest Caselaw 739 J&K

Jammu & Kashmir High Court

M/S K K Enterprises vs Union Of India & Ors on 13 February, 2026

                                                                Sr. No. 7
         HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                         AT JAMMU
CJ Court
                           Case: Arb P No. 10/2026
M/S K K Enterprises                                  ...Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s)

                   Through: Mr. Jugal Kishore Gupta, Advocate.

                              V/s

Union of India & Ors.                                         .... Respondent(s)

                   Through: Mr. Vishal Sharma, Sr. Advocate (DSGI) with
                            Mr. Eishaan Dadhichi, CGSC.
                            Mr. Sumant Sudan, Advocate

            CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

                               ORDER

13.02.2026

(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 petitioner-M/s K K Enterprises, being a Firm registered with the MES Department enlisted to carry out the building and road works, low tension works, civil engineering and other related works, was found the lowest bidder while participating in the tendering process for the execution of the contract work, being CA No. CWE/JA-04/2020-21: Special repair to building no. P-51/01 to 08(Ors. Married Accn) at Sunderbani Under GE (North) Akhnoor As DETAILED IN TENDER ENQUIRY PUBLISHED ON 14 FEB 2020 VIDE TENDER ID NO 2020 MES 325041 _1 WITH BID SUBMISSION END DATE AS 06 MAR 2020 AND SUBSEQUENTLY EXTENDED TO 09 MAR 2020 AND 16 MAR 2020. The petitioner was issued the Acceptance Letter No. 8220/04/36/E8 dated May 09, 2020 and the Work Order No.1(P) dated May 22, 2020 wherein the cost of the contract work was fixed at ₹ 19,74,320.70/- and the date of commencement and completion was reflected as June 01, 2020 and November 27, 2020, respectively. The execution of the work was deferred, for,

the building sites were occupied and not handed over to the petitioner till first week of July 2020, petitioner vide letter dated July 03, 2020, informed respondent no.4-Garrison Engineer (North) regarding the same, who vide letter dated July 15, 2020 requested 6 JAT C/o 56 APO for handing over the sites. On account of non-fulfillment of the obligations provided under the contract, the petitioner vide letter January 04, 2023, requested the respondents either to remove the hurdles or to appoint an interim arbitrator to resolve the disputes. The said request of the petitioner was rejected by respondent no.3 and conveyed vide letter dated March 11, 2023. It is further submitted that the work could not be executed as the department failed to issue the deviation orders for the changes suggested in the execution of the contract work and finalization of the rates for the changed items and even running bills/RARs were also not released despite the petitioner firm having completed more than 70% of the contract work. On December 27, 2025, the petitioner informed the respondent no.2 about the invocation of the Clause 70 of IAFW-2249 with request for the appointment of an independent arbitrator The respondents had failed to appoint the arbitrator for redressal of the disputes that arose between the parties. Hence this petition.

03. Heard. Notice.

04. Served with advance copy of the petition, Mr. Eishaan Dadhichi, learned Central Government Standing Counsel present in Court, accepts notice.

05. The existence of the arbitration clause, as aforesaid, and its invocation by the petitioner vide notice dated December 27, 2025, is not disputed. But learned counsel for the respondents denies the claim that is sought to be made by the petitioner.

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 respondents 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. Sunil Gupta, (Retd.) S.E. (PWD) R&B, R/o 102, Sector-3, Channi Himmat, Jammu, Mobile No. 9419196592 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 13.02.2026 Sunita