Court under Section 11(6) appoints arbitrator upon undisputed invocation of arbitration clause in contract, permitting respondents to raise limitation and merits objections before tribunal.

ORDER :

ARUN PALLI, CJ.

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 case set-up by the petitioner is that being a registered contractor, he participated in the bidding process initiated by respondent no.2 vide E-NIT No.SE-II/S&O/19 of 2018 dated 23.01.2018 for work “Construction of Retaining Walls (RW4) and (RW5) at Grid Station (Rangil) Alusten”. The petitioner emerging as the lowest bidder was issued allotment letter dated 10.05.2018 inter alia providing that the contract would be governed by the terms and conditions of the SBD. The petitioner, accordingly, executed and completed the work in March, 2019 and a work completion certificate stands issued in his favour. It is stated that in addition to the allotted work, some additional works were also executed by the petitioner. Accordingly, final bill is stated to have been submitted, however, the respondents failed to release the final bill amount of Rs.1,97,43,264/- and they also failed to sanction and release the amount with regard to extra works executed by the petitioner to the extent of Rs.3,41,76,648/-. A number of communications are stated to have been addressed to the respondents for redressal of the grievances but to avail and finally, the petitioner, in terms of communication dated 03.12.2025, invoked the arbitration clause contained in the SBD and sought appointment of an arbitrator. However, the respondents failed to act in the matter. Hence, this petition.

3. Heard. Notice.

4. Served with advance copy of the petition, Mr. Faheem Nissar Shah, GA, present in Court, accepts notice. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently disputes/ denies the claim that is sought to be made by the petitioner. It is urged that as per the case set-out in the petition itself, the claim of the petitioner is not only time barred but wholly untenable and thus, deserves to be rejected. However, the existence of the arbitration clause, as aforesaid, and its invocation by the petitioner is not disputed. He, accordingly, submits that let an arbitrator be appointed but the respondents be granted liberty to raise all possible pleas in this regard before the arbitrator.

5. Accordingly, in the wake of the position sketched out above and in terms of the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondents, the petition is allowed. And, with consent of learned counsel for the parties, Mr. Justice Rashid Ali Dar, Former Judge High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh (Mob. No. 9419019963) 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. The respondents are at liberty to raise all the possible pleas/ objections as regards the subject matter before the learned Arbitrator.

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