1. This is an appeal directed against the judgment and order dated 19-3-2002 passed by learned District Judge, Jammu in File No. 15/Arbitration Act. By the aforesaid order, petition of the appellant under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act for the grant of interim order has been dismissed.

2. Facts of the case relevant for the disposal of this case in a nutshell are that, that a contract CE (P) SAMPARK/ 11/2001-2002 for the supply of Stone Metal and Screening between KM 118 to 128 Road Tain Bridge-Rajouri was allotted to the appellant by the respondent. There was an agreement executed between the parties in respect of this allotment of contract work. In pursuance of letter of acceptance issued by respondent, work order was issued to the appellant for execution of the contract work on 29-11 -2001. For the purpose of reference, the relevant extract of the word order is reproduced here:

"3. Time effect:

(1) Date of handing: - 29 Nov 2001 over of site

(ii) Date of comm-: - 29 Nov1 2001 encement of work

(iii) Date of Completion: -

Phase. -l :-28Feb2002

Phase-ll: - 28 May 2002"

3. After the issuance of the work order, petitioner/appellant started the execution of the work, utilized all the resources, employed sizeable number of labour and arranged vehicles for sending stone boulders at site, and procured and dumped raw-material at the site to complete the work in time. It is further the case of the petitioner/appellant that due to militants attack on Indian parliament on 13th December, 2001, the situation in the State of Jammu And Kashmir in particular worsened. The site of work being located near the Indo-Pak Border in District Rajouri, the deployment of Indian Army on the Indo-Pak Border and large scale migration of the population from the area virtually stalled the further progress of the work. It is further contended that for about four weeks, the petitioner/appellant could not continue with his work due to war like situation at the site. He, however, approached the respondent many times, held meetings with them and apprised them about the genuine difficulties faced by him due to which more than a month had been wasted in order to seek extension of period for completion of the work. That the respondent, however, reminded the petitioner/appellant through communication dated 13th February, 2002 for the completion of the contract work Phase-l by 28th February, 2002 and also threatened that in case of non-completion within the scheduled time, the balance work could be got completed through other agency at the risk and cost of the appellant. Petitioner/appellant further stated to have replied the aforesaid communication on 15-2-2002, but the respondents declined the extension of the period of contract and remained adamant to get the work executed through other agency at the risk and-cost of the petitioner/appellant.

4. The stand of the respondents-Union of India, on the other hand, reflected in their demurrer filed before the Trial Court that the contract was an operational defence work and the site had a strategic significance, as the road was to be used by the Army for transporting the troops deployed in the Border area. This contract was required to be completed in two phases with one phase to be completed within three months and other in six months. It is also maintained by the respondents that time was the essence of the contract and the petitioner/appellant had a knowledge of the fact. But despite that the petitioner/appellant did not mobilize the full resources so as to complete the work within the time frame specified in the work order. Several letters, annexed with the record, were issued to remind the petitioner/appellant about the slow progress of the work on site calling upon him to gear up the work considering the urgency being operation defence work required to be used for Army for deployment of forces on the Border area. That the matter, however, did not end up here, the petitioner/ appellant was further

Click Here to Read the rest of this document