[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Sr.No. 09 vs Union Of India And Others on 13 February, 2026
Sr.No. 09
2026:JKLHC-JMU:344
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
CJ Court
Case No. : Arb P No. 08/2026
Date of Pronouncement : 13.02.2026
Uploaded on : 13.02.2026
M/s V 6 Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. ..... Appellant/Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Anil Mahajan, Advocate
Vs
Union of India and others ..... Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Vishal Sharma, DSGI with
Mr. Eishan Dadhichi, CGSC and
Mr. Suman Sudan, Advocate
Coram: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
ORDER
(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 Private Limited Company, registered under the
provisions of the Companies Act, participated in the tendering process initiated
by the respondents for "construction of AF School Building at AF Station,
Jammu" and having been declared to be the successful bidder was allotted the
contract for an amount of Rs.10,87,40,530/- vide CA No. CEAFU-20/2018-19
issued by the respondents. Accordingly, a Contract Agreement was executed,
wherein the date of commencement of the work was fixed as 04.02.2018 with
extended date of completion as 30.06.2022. The petitioner, accordingly,
executed the work and completed the same on 30.06.2022. However, the
respondents failed to release the payment for work already executed.
3. It is contended that the agreement entered into between the parties
contains an Arbitration Clause which provides that during the subsistence of the
contract, the parties shall approach the Dispute Resolution Board (DRB) for
redressal of the disputes, if any, within three months from the date either party
gives the notice. Therefore, in terms of the said Clause, the petitioner, vide letter
dated 17.11.2025, called upon the Chairman Chief Engineer, Northern Command
2026:JKLHC-JMU:344
C/O 56 APO stating that since the disputes have arisen between the parties, as
such, the same be resolved through Dispute Resolution Board. In response to the
said letter, the Chairman Engineer, vide letter dated 13.01.2026, communicated to
the petitioner that it is not possible for the HQ to constitute the DRB.
4. It is urged that since the respondents failed to accede to the request of the
petitioner and also having failed to release the payment in favour of the petitioner,
the petitioner was constrained to invoke arbitration Clause 70 of IAWF 2249
General Conditions of the Contract, seeking appointment of an arbitrator for
dispute resolution vide letter dated 06.04.2024. It is further urged that respondent-
department vide letter dated 08.11.2024 asked the petitioner to forward a signed
copy of the agreement for appointment of an arbitrator which was, accordingly,
forwarded but till filing of the present petition, the respondents have failed to
appoint an arbitrator. And, therefore, the petitioner has been left with no choice
but to seek indulgence of this Court under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, through the medium of petition at hand seeking appointment of
an independent arbitrator.
5. It is urged that since the respondent-department has failed to release the
payment despite notice dated 06.04.2024 and neither agreed for settlement of the
disputes through arbitration nor directed appointment of an arbitrator. Hence, the
petition at hand.
6. Heard. Notice.
7. Served with advance copy of the petition, Mr. Eishan Dadhichi, CGSC,
present in Court, accepts notice.
8. The existence of the arbitration clause, as aforesaid, and its invocation by
the petitioner vide notice dated 06.04.2024 is not disputed.
9. 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.
10. 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 the consent of learned counsel for the parties,
2026:JKLHC-JMU:344
Mr. Arvind Kumar Arora, DG, Pers, MES, 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.
11. Registry to send a copy of this order to the learned arbitrator.
12. Disposed of.
( (ARUN PALLI)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Jammu :
13.02.2026
Pawan Chopra/Secy
