Jammu & Kashmir High Court
M/S Navnirman Construction Co vs Union Of India And Others on 22 August, 2025
Sr. No.28
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
(Through Virtual Mode)
Arb P No.33/2025
M/s Navnirman Construction Co. ...Petitioner(s)/Appellants.
Through: Mr. Syed Mohtasim, Advocate.
Vs.
Union of India and others. ....Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Vishal Sharma, DSGI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
ORDER
22.08.2025
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 registered partnership firm, having
participated in the bidding process and his bid having been accepted by the
respondents vide letter no.81178/02/E8 dated May 18, 2021 for
“Execution of Balance Well Sinking of Home Bank Side Abutment up to
Original Design Level with Provision of Upwards & Downwards Revision
therein including Bottom Plugging, Well Cap, casting of Abutment,
Abutment Cap and SSI of 85 MTR Span Khalsar Bride over Shyok River
at KM 6.500 on Khalsar-Sasoma Road under 54 RCC/16 BRTF under
Project Vijayak in Leh-Ladakh(UT)” a contract, under No. CE (P)
Vijayak/05/2021-22, came to be entered between the parties. Disputes are
alleged to have arisen between the parties regarding the scope of work,
particularly with regard to Item No. 1.02 of Schedule „A‟ which is “Sinking
of existing Well”. The further dispute, alleged to have arisen, is with regard
to the damage to curbs and well steining (well foundations), which the
petitioner claimed was pre-existing, but the respondents shifted the blame
on the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner invoked condition 70 of the
General Conditions of Contracts (IAFW-2249), by issuing notice dated
25.02.2025, seeking appointment of an arbitrator. The respondents, vide
their communication dated 28.03.2025, rejected the request of the
petitioner on the ground that the request for appointment of an arbitrator
was conditional. Owing to rejection of request of the petitioner, he has been
constrained to approach this Court in terms of Section 11(6) of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Hence, this petition.
3. Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court, the respondents had
caused appearance and filed their response. In brief what is sought to be
urged is that the approval was granted in the year 2010 for construction of
85 meter span permanent bridge over River Shyok on Khalsar-Sasoma
Road at a cost of Rs. 368.06 lakhs. During the course of execution, major
technical variations arose and a revised estimate of Rs. 905.18 lakh was
sanctioned in the year 2014 to cover the additional costs. For the balance
work (well sinking and other related works), a new contract was awarded
to the petitioner in the year 2021.
It is stated that the petitioner, for various reasons, raised a claim for
variation under Clause 7 of GCC (IAFW-2249) vide letter dated 17th
February, 2025, which was reviewed and rejected by the respondents vide
letter dated 24th February, 2025, as the same was not found to be in
conformity with the terms and conditions of the contract agreement. Owing
to the rejection of the said claim, the petitioner sought initiation of the
arbitration proceedings under the provisions of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, by invoking Clause 70 of GCC (IAFW-2249), requesting
for appointment of an arbitrator. It is submitted that the contractor has
failed to exhaust the contractually mandated dispute resolution mechanism
including the conciliation process prescribed under Clause 47.1.1.1(C) of
the Special Conditions of the Contract before approaching this Court by the
medium of petition at hand. As such, it is submitted that the petition at
hand is legally unsustainable and liable to be dismissed.
Further, it is submitted that the petitioner had failed to submit the
requisite waiver under Section 12(5), read with the Seventh Schedule of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, being a mandatory requirement
when a party seeks appointment of a departmental arbitrator. It is further
alleged that the petitioner contractor has failed to fulfil the contractual
obligations and delayed the execution of the work by raising baseless and
extraneous queries. And it has, accordingly, been prayed that petition be
dismissed.
4. The existence of the arbitration clause, as aforesaid, and its
invocation by the petitioner vide notice dated 25.02.2025 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 application is
allowed. Accordingly, Mr. Justice Ali Muhammad Magrey (Retd. Chief
Justice, High Court of J&K) is appointed as the sole arbitrator. Who shall
proceed in the matter in accordance with the provisions of the Act 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
22.08.2025
Abdul Qayoom, Secy.
Abdul Qayoom Lone
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
25.08.2025 18:13
[ad_1]
Source link