The Arbitration and Conciliation Act requires strict adherence to limitation periods for the appointment of arbitrators; delays exceeding three years render petitions ex-facie time-barred.

ORDER :

Tashi Rabstan, C.J.

1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking appointment of an arbitrator by invoking Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the 'Act')

2. It is averred in the petition that the petitioner being a Private Ltd. Company duly incorporated under the Indian Companies Act of 1956, after having competed in the tendering process initiated by the respondents, was allotted a contract, Construction of Additional Office Accommodation at Old Secretariat Srinagar, vide allotment order No.15612-16 dated 26.11.1992. After allotment of the contract in favour of the petitioner, it is stated that the petitioner complied with the terms and conditions of the allotment order, submitted the bank guarantee and also dumped material and machinery on spot for execution of the work. It is stated that the respondents failed to provide the drawings required by them to be provided for completion of the work within three years and they also failed to release the amount of Rs.20.00 lacs as Mobilization Advance in favour of the petitioner. It is further averred that after a period of four years, on 08.05.1996, the respondents provided the drawing of construction of Layout and Raft of Bock “C” and the said work was executed on spot by the petitioner. However, the approved drawings of the balance works, despite repeated requests, were not provided, resulting into huge losses to the petitioner.

3. It is further pleaded in the petition that despite failure on the part of the respondents to provide the approved drawings, they sought encashment of the Bank Guarantee and, thus, the petitioner was constrained to approach the Court of Principal District Judge, Srinagar, under Section 9 of the Act seeking interim protection and the said application is stated to have been dismissed vide order dated 31.03.2004. Against the order dated 31.03.2004, the petitioner filed a Statutory Appeal before this Court being CIA No.48/2004 and the said appeal was also dismissed vide order dated 13.08.2018. Against the order of dismissal dated 13.08.2018 passed in CIA No.48/2004, the petitioner has filed a review petition being RPC No.09/2018 and the same is stated to be pending before this Court.

4. It is further claimed by the petitioner that he has executed the part of the work allotted to him to the extent approved drawings were provided to him and in so far as the rest of the work is concerned, the same could not be executed because of non-furnishing of the approved drawings. It is also stated that the respondents have also failed to release the Mobilization Advance of Rs.20.00 lacs as also the bills submitted with regard to the execution of the part of the work and, as such, dispute is claimed to have arisen between the parties which is required to be resolved through arbitration. It is further stated that in view of the aforesaid given facts, the petitioner invoked clause 54 of the Agreement containing the Arbitration Clause and served a notice upon the respondents seeking appointment of an arbitrator in the matter. The petitioner has further stated that despite service of notice, the respondents have not acted in the matter and they failed to appoint an arbitrator in the matter, as such, the indulgence of this Court is sought in terms of Section 11(6) of the Act seeking appointment of an arbitrator.

5. The present petition came to be filed before this Court on 12.05.2023 and on coming up before the Court, notices were directed to be issued in the matter vide order dated 19.05