Authorized representatives of a contracting party can file applications under arbitration laws irrespective of being signatories to the original contract.

1. Instant appeal filed by the Union of India under S.37 of the Jammu and Kashmir Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1997 ("the Act of 1997") arises out of an order dated 19th April, 2022 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in AA No.31/2012 titled Union of India and another v. M/s Des Raj Nagpal, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the application of the appellants filed under S.34 of the Act of 1997 to challenge an award dated 21st June, 2012 published by the Sole Arbitrator, namely Baljit Singh Chief Engineer (QS and C) in case titled M/s Des Raj Nagpal v. Union of India and others. The application of the appellants has been rejected by the learned Single Judge primarily on the ground that the Garrison Engineer, who has signed the application on behalf of Union of India was not party to the arbitration agreement and, therefore, was not an authorized person to file application under S.34 of the Act of 1997 for and on behalf of the Union of India.

2. The impugned order and judgment of the learned Single Judge is assailed by the Union of India on multiple grounds. However, before we advert to the grounds of challenge urged by Mr. Vishal Sharma, learned DSGI appearing for the appellants, we deem it appropriate and necessary to notice few facts which are germane to the disposal of the controversy raised in this appeal.

3. Pursuant to a contract agreement executed between Union of India through Chief Engineer, Pathankot Zone, appellant No.1 herein and the respondent M/s Des Raj Nagpal, the work, subject matter of contract agreement, was handed over to the respondent for execution. As per the contract agreement, Phase - I of the work was required to be completed by 19th March, 2002 and Phase - II by 19th January, 2003. The respondent completed both the phases within the extended period i.e. 30th March, 2005. Certain disputes arose between the parties out of the said contract and for resolution of these disputes, Sh. Baljit Singh (QS and C) was appointed as sole arbitrator. The arbitrator passed an award against the appellants, which was published on 21st June, 2012. Feeling dissatisfied and aggrieved of the award dated 21st June, 2012, the appellants filed an application under S.34 of the Act of 1997. The application was filed on behalf of Union of India through Chief Engineer, Pathankote Zone and Garrison Engineer, Satwari Jammu Cant. and was signed by appellant No.2 - Garrison Engineer.

4. Before the learned Single Judge, an objection was taken by the respondent that appellant No.2 - Garrison Engineer was not party to the contract agreement and, therefore, was not competent to challenge the award by filing an application under S.34 of the Act of 1997. Objection, as it seems from the impugned order, prevailed and the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dismissed the application filed by the appellants.

5. It is in the aforesaid backdrop and feeling aggrieved, the appellants are before us in this appeal filed under S.37 of the Act of 1997. The impugned order is challenged primarily on the following grounds: -
a) That the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that the contract in question was between Union of India and the respondent and that the Union of India was entitled to file an application under S.34 of the Act of 1997 through any authorized officer including the Garrison Engineer.
b) That the learned Single Judge committed an error in holding that since the arbitration agreement / contract was signed by the Chief Engineer on behalf of Union of India, as such, the application could have been filed only by the Chief Engineer ignoring the fact that party to the contract agree