The main legal principle established is that the Court should not reject an application for appointment of an arbitrator at the threshold unless the claim is manifestly, ex-facie and hopelessly time-barred. The issue of limitation should be left to the arbitral tribunal to decide after considering evidence and merits of the claims.

JUDGMENT :

N. Kotiswar Singh, J.

1. Arbitration Petition Nos.12, 13 and 14 of 2022 are taken up together and disposed of by this common order as common issues are involved in the above referred three petitions.

2. The petitioners in these petitions are one and the same, and so are the respondents.

3. By these applications, the petitioner is seeking appointment of an arbitrator for resolution of the dispute which has arisen between the parties by invoking Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).

4. The petitioner in each of these petitions is a company primarily engaged in the business of engineering, procurement and construction projects as well as supply projects in the fields like power, industrial plant, infrastructure etc.

5. The Respondent in every petition is the Jammu and Kashmir State Power Development Corporation Ltd. (herein after referred as “JKSPDC”) which is a company established by the Government of Jammu and Kashmir primarily responsible for execution, completion, operation and maintenance of all power stations and power projects of the State now Union Territory.

6. The Respondent invited bids for electrifying the habitations/villages and for creation of rural infrastructure and household electrification to BPL households in certain Blocks of Pulwama, Baramulla and Anantnag districts under the Rajiv Gandhi Gramin Vidhyutikaran Yojana (RGGVY).

7. The petitioner being declared as the lowest bidder in respect of the aforesaid three districts i.e., Pulwama, Baramulla and Anantnag, was awarded the contract for designing, engineering, manufacture, fabrication, testing along with testing at manufacture’s works site, supply of the material/equipment including transportation to site destination, insurance, storage at site, and activities comprising route survey/site selection, erection, testing and commissioning of works for rural electrification infrastructure and household electrification under RGGVY Scheme for these three districts by separate work orders. Accordingly, in respect of Pulwama district, the petitioner was awarded the contract worth Rs.22,02,43,093/- (including applicable levies, taxes and duties and freight and insurance), out of which the arbitration proceeding under Arbitration Petition No.12 of 2022 has arisen. Similarly, the petitioner was awarded the contract in respect of Baramulla district worth Rs.18,15,35,123/- for execution of similar works, out of which arbitration proceeding under Arbitration Petition No.13 of 2022 has arisen. The petitioner also having found the lowest bidder was awarded the similar works in respect of Anantnag district worth Rs.51,22,25,482/- which included excise duty, CST and VAT, other applicable levies, taxes and duties and freight and insurance, and a second contract for the same district worth Rs.8,47,74,891/- (including WCT @ 8.4%) was also awarded to the petitioner, out of which arbitration proceeding under Arbitration Petition No.14 of 2022 has arisen.

8. According to the petitioner even though the petitioner was declared the lowest bidder for the aforesaid works in the three districts, in view of certain ambiguity regarding the applicability of work contract tax (WCT), agreements were not immediately signed. The petitioner contends that, however, after a series of deliberations and meetings, the petitioner was informed that the WCT in respect of contracts will be paid by the JKSPDC. Accordingly, the contracts were finally executed for the aforesaid works in the three districts on 29.04.2010.

9. As per the petitioner, the Managing Director JKSPDC vide his letter No.PDC/P-226/CJ/5655 dated 25.02.2010also clarified that WCT deductions will be made only to the extent of erection part in respect of the three RGGVY projects in the district of Pulwama, Baramulla and Anantnag and not for other works, and accordingly, the issue relating to WCT was settled and only after settlement of the said issue, the contract agreements in r