SR. NO.07 ARB P No. 79 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 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, Sh. Raj Kumar Sarkar, Retd. Chief Engineer, Railways Flat no.203, Tower 5…
Judgment
Through: Mr. Dheeraj Sharma, Advocate. Union of India and another. ….Respondent(s) Vs. Through: Mr. Vishal Sharma DSGI. CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
O R D E R 08.08.2025
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 Private Limited Company, a contract agreement bearing CA No.CELZ-02/2015-16 amended as CELZ-01/2015- 16 for “PROVN OF EXTERNAL ELECTRIFICATION FOR NIMMU STN NEAR LEH” for an amount of Rs.5,62,00,000.00/- was accepted by the Chief Engineer Leh Zone vide letter no.1800025/CELZ-01/2015- 16/11/E8 in favour of the petitioner on 10.02.2016 whereafter the work order was issued in favour of the petitioner vide letter dated 15th February,
2016. The date of commencement of the work was April 1, 2016 and completion date was shown as September 30, 2017. Accordingly, the petitioner took up the subject work and completed the same on September 9, 2021 to the satisfaction of the respondents and work completion letter is also stated to have been issued in favour of the petitioner. It is stated that after completion of the work, final bill was submitted to the respondents but despite repeated requests having been made in this regard for release of the same, the payment was delayed by the respondents on one pretext or the other and despite lapse of considerable time, the respondents have not made the final payment. The respondents having failed to make payment in relation to the execution of the subject contract in favour of the petitioner, number of communications are stated to have been addressed to the respondents but to no avail. Finally, in failing in his attempts to seek release of the payment, the petitioner lastly served a legal notice dated 10.07.2024 upon the respondents seeking appointment of an arbitrator in the matter. But despite service of notice invoking arbitration clause 70 of the General Conditions of Contract, the respondents have failed to act and direct appointment of an arbitrator. Hence, this petition.
Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court, the respondents though caused appearance but no reply/ response has been filed on their behalf.
The existence of the arbitration clause, as aforesaid, and its invocation by the petitioner vide notice dated 10.07.2024 is not disputed.
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, Sh. Raj Kumar Sarkar, Retd. Chief Engineer, Railways Flat no.203, Tower 5, Common Wealth Games Villages Delhi 110092, 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 Jammu 08.08.2025 Abdul Qayoom, Secy. Abdul Qayoom Lone I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
18.08.2025 15:32
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.