IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH

AT SRINAGAR

Reserved on:19.12.2025

Pronounced on :22.12.2025 Uploaded on : 22.12.2025

Whether the operative

part or full judgment is pronounced: Full

CM(M) No. 568/2025

CM No. 8559/2025 Caveat No. 2540/2025

UNION TERRITORY OF J&K

….. PETITIONER/APPELLANTS (S)

Through: Mr. Syed Musaib, Dy. AG

V/s

M/S SRM CONTRACTORS LTD

….. RESPONDENT(S)

Through: Mr. Syed Faisal Qadiri, Sr. Advocate

with Mr. Manik and

Mr. Sikander Hayat Khan, Advocates

Coram:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE

JUDGMENT Recovery Project pursuant to Letter of Acceptance dated 02.11.2020. In this regard, the contract agreement was executed on 6^th January 2021. Notice to proceed was issued on 07.01.2021 and the completion period for the sub project was 15 months with 15.04.2022 as the original date of completion. The contract between the parties was governed by the General Conditions of Contract containing the disputes resolution clause which reads as under:

1. The petitioner has, challenged order dated 16.10.2025 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Srinagar whereby application of the petitioner under Section 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred

to as the “Act of 1996”), has been dismissed.

2. Briefly stated case of the petitioner is that the respondent was awarded contract for “Upgradation of Tutan di Khuie to Khada-Madana Road” under the Jhelum Tawi Flood

“24.1 If the Contractor believes that a decision taken by the Project Manager was either outside the authority given to the Project Manager by the Contract or that the decision was wrongly taken, the decision shall be referred to the Adjudicator/DRE within 14 days of the notification of the Project Manager’s decision.

24.2. The Adjudicator/DRE shall give a decision in writing within 28 days of receipt of a notification of a dispute.

24.3………Whatever decision is reached by the Adjudicator/DRE, either party may refer that decision to an Arbitrator within 28 days of the Adjudicator’s/DRE written decisions. If neither party refers the dispute to the arbitration within the above 28 days, the Adjudicator/DRE’s decision shall be final and binding….

3. It has been averred in the petition that contrary to the agreed procedure and the mandate of Section 11(2) and Section 12(5) read with the Seventh Schedule of the Act of 1996, the respondent proceeded unilaterally to appoint Engineer Khalid Muzaffar, a former Director of Jammu and Kashmir Economic Reconstruction Agency (hereinafter referred to as “ERA”) as an Arbitrator. According to the petitioner, the aforenamed person could not have acted as an Arbitrator under Section 12(5) and the Seventh Schedule of the Act due to his past association with the petitioner. It has been submitted that the said Arbitrator did not make any disclosure in this regard as was mandated under Section 12 of the Act.

4. It is further case of the petitioner that the respondent had also procured nomination of Engineer Iftikhar Drabu as an Arbitrator on behalf of the petitioner through Institution of Engineers (India) without the consent or participation of the petitioner. Subsequently Shri M K Aggarwal was inducted as Presiding Arbitrator without following statutory mechanism under Section 11 of the Act. It is case of the petitioner that it has never consented to such appointments and instead, vide its communication dated 29.04.2024, the petitioner objected to the constitution of the Tribunal highlighting the unilateral nature of the appointment and the ineligibility of the nominated Arbitrators. Despite these objections, the Tribunal proceeded to enter upon reference and entertain claims of the respondent.

5. It has been submitted that on 04.04.2025, the respondent filed an application to place on record 140 additional documents which was objected to by the petitioner but the Tribunal vide its order dated 20.04.2025, permitted the filing of the additional documents and observed that these documents buttress the existing clai