JUDGMENT :

SANJAY DHAR, J.

01. By this common judgment the afore-titled two arbitration petitions involving identical parties and common questions of law and fact are proposed to be decided together.

02. The petitioner-firm has filed the present petitions under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter to be referred to as “Act”) seeking appointment of an arbitrator for adjudication of disputes that have arisen between the parties.

03. Pleadings of Arb. P No. 98 of 2025

3.1 As per case of the petitioner-firm, pursuant to tender floated by respondent No. 1 through respondent No. 3, its bid was declared as successful and vide letter No. 8818/68/E8 dated 23.03.2007, the contract relating to “repair of internal electrification in certain buildings in 213 Transit Camp at Jammu” for an amount of Rs. 4,39,311.86 was allotted in his favour. It is case of the petitioner that an agreement came to be executed between it and respondent No. 1 through respondent No. 3. The date of commencement of work was 29.03.2007 with date of completion as 28.09.2007.

3.2 According to the petitioner, the site was handed over to it in part on 29.03.2007 whereafter the work was completed and the building was handed over to the respondent-department. It has been submitted that because the respondent did not hand over all the buildings for execution of work to the petitioner, as such, it was unable to execute the work at old quoted rates. Accordingly, the petitioner asked the respondents to execute fresh agreement as it was not feasible to execute the balance work at old quoted rates. It has been submitted that payment in respect of the work, which was already done by the petitioner, has not been settled and the respondents have not performed their contractual obligations relating to handing over of all buildings for execution of the work.

3.3 It has been averred that vide letter/order dated 24.09.2012, respondent No. 3 constituted a Board of Officers to ascertain the quantum of work executed by the petitioner and the Board submitted its report dated 07.03.2013 with the recommendation that the staff, who has made the payment, be called and the payment made to the contractor be got recorded in the measurement book before finalizing the case. However, respondent No. 3 vide letter dt. 24.09.2012 cancelled the contract w.e.f., 30.09.2012.

3.4 It has been submitted that vide communications dated 15.05.2024 and 01.02.2025, the petitioner requested respondent No. 2, the designated authority, to appoint the arbitrator to decide the disputes that have arisen between the parties. The petitioner has given the details of claims that, according to it, have arisen against the respondents. It has been submitted that as many as 14 claims have arisen and an amount of Rs. 92,88,279.64 along with interest @ 18% per annum is due and payable to the petitioner.

3.5 It has further been submitted that vide communication dated 09.08.2024 issued by respondent No. 3, the petitioner was asked to furnish an undertaking that it has no objection for change in appointing authority so that the appointing authority may take a decision in the matter. This was responded to by the petitioner vide communication dated 02.09.2024 informing that it does not agree to the same. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has filed the present petition seeking appointment of arbitrator.

3.6 The respondents have filed their objections to the petition in which it has been submitted that the petition is hopelessly time barred, as such, liable to be dismissed. It has been contended that the petitioner has suppressed material facts and that it has not approached the Court with clean hands. According to the respondents, the petitioner did not execute the work as per the agreed time schedule and failed to complete the entire work despite issuance of several slow progress notices. This ultimately led to cancellation of the contract on 24.09.2012.

3.7 It has been submitted that the pet