At Srinagar vs Union Territory Of J&K And Others on 6 June, 2025

Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench

At Srinagar vs Union Territory Of J&K And Others on 6 June, 2025

                                                                        2025:JKLHC-SGR:173



                                                                   Sr. No.02

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                    AT SRINAGAR



                            Arb P No.31/2024


Danish Lab                                     ...Petitioner(s)/Appellants.
Through:      Mr. Varut Kr Gupta, Advocate.

                                   Vs.
Union Territory of J&K and others.                      ....Respondent(s)
Through:      Mr. Faheem Nissar Shah, GA.

CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE


                               ORDER

06.06.2025

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 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” with item name “Phoscalvet
Jelly Veterinary Vitamin and Mineral Mixture, Size 1000 gm.”. 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
1000 gms to 1000ml. The petitioner, accordingly, made supplies with

Page 1 of 3
2025:JKLHC-SGR:173

packing size of 1000 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 19.01.2022, 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.

3. 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.

4. The existence of the arbitration clause, as aforesaid, and its
invocation by the petitioner vide notice dated 20.04.2024 is not disputed.

5. 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.

6. In the given facts and circumstances, coupled with statement made
at the Bar by learned counsel for the respondents, the petition is allowed.

Page 2 of 3

2025:JKLHC-SGR:173

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.

7. Registry to send a copy of this order to the learned arbitrator.

(ARUN PALLI)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Srinagar
06.06.2025
Abdul Qayoom, Secy.

Page 3 of 3