SR. NO.04 ARB P No. 33 of 2024 · High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
at the Bar by learned counsel for the respondents, the petition is allowed
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. The petitioner being a small scale proprietorship firm is engaged in the business of manufacturing and distribution of animal feed supplement to Government and private institutions. The Government of India has created electronic market plat under the name “GeM Portal” for purposes of facilitating…
- Para 66. 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 consent of learned counsel for the parties, Mr. Justice A. M. Magray (Former Chief Justice, High Court of Jammu…
Judgment
Through: Mr. Faheem Nissar Shah, GA. CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
O R D E R 06.06.2025
The present petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of an arbitrator.
The petitioner being a small scale proprietorship firm is engaged in the business of manufacturing and distribution of animal feed supplement to Government and private institutions. The Government of India has created electronic market plat under the name “GeM Portal” for purposes of facilitating online e-procurement of goods and services required by various departments of the Government. On the GeM Portal, the respondents initiated the process for procurement of goods under category “Veterinary Vitamin & Mineral Mixture IS 1664:2002” with item name “BKAAY Veterniary Vitamin and Mineral Mixture – BKAAY CAL-VIT- MIN”. After completion of the process, the supply order was issued in favour of the petitioner and a contract was entered into between the parties. It is stated that respondent no.2, while according sanction, changed packing size from 500 gms to 500 ml. The petitioner, accordingly, made supplies with packing size of 500 ml, which came to be rejected by the respondents as the same were not found as per the specifications stated in GeM contract and the petitioner was asked to lift back the supplies. The petitioner agreed to lift back the supplies and make supplies as per the new pack size. Accordingly, the petitioner made supplies with new pack size and raised invoices, however, the respondents withheld. It is submitted that instead of making payments for the supplies, the respondent no.2 is continuously making communications to the petitioner for lifting of the supplies. Owing to the said facts, a dispute is alleged to have arisen between the parties and the contract dated 11.12.2021, specifically provides that General Terms and Conditions as are available on GeM Portal shall be applicable and Clause 16 of the General Terms and Conditions provides for dispute resolution by arbitration. The petitioner invoked the said clause and served notice dated
20.04.2024 upon the respondents requesting for appointment of an arbitrator. Owing to the non-consideration of the request of the petitioner, the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court in terms of Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation by the medium of petition at hand.
Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court, the respondents had caused appearance and filed the response. In brief what is sought to be urged is; the petition is not maintainable as no cause of action accrued to the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner himself had committed breach of the contract. Though, it is not disputed that the contract that was entered into between the parties provides for determination of the dispute by way of arbitration.
The existence of the arbitration clause, as aforesaid, and its invocation by the petitioner vide notice dated 20.04.2024 is not disputed.
Although, as indicated earlier, the respondents have filed objections to the petition but during the course of hearing, learned counsel for the respondents pleads no objection in case the petition is allowed.
Operative part
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 consent of learned counsel for the parties, Mr. Justice A. M. Magray (Former Chief Justice, High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh) 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.
Registry to send a copy of this order to the learned arbitrator. (ARUN PALLI) CHIEF JUSTICE Srinagar 06.06.2025 Abdul Qayoom, Secy.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: at the Bar by learned counsel for the respondents, the petition is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — s. 11(6).
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.