Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(J&K) 855
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
Sanjay Parihar, J
Tata Power Renewable Energy Limited – Appellant
Versus
UT of Jammu & Kashmir – Respondent
WP (C) No. 1433/2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Abhinav Sharma, Abhirash Sharma, Siddhant Gupta, Akash Lamba, Shreyesth Ramesh Sharma, Syed Faisal Qadri, Manik Dutt
For the Respondents: Abdul Rashid Malik
Judicial interference with interlocutory orders in arbitration under Articles 226/227 is restricted to exceptional cases of patent lack of jurisdiction or manifest perversity, as the statutory scheme favors minimal intervention and provides a remedy under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
Headnote:(A) Arbitration Law - Interlocutory Orders - Judicial Intervention - Interference by High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution with interlocutory orders passed by an arbitrator is subject to exceptional restraint and is permissible only in rare cases involving patent lack of inherent jurisdiction or manifest perversity. (Para 14, 15, 16)
(B) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 26 - Appointment of Experts - The power of an arbitrator to appoint experts to report on specific issues is a statutory power; objections regarding the timing, relevance, or admissibility of the expert's findings are evidentiary matters to be decided by the arbitrator and do not render the appointment order without jurisdiction. (Para 20, 27)
(C) Evidence - Temporal Relevance - Physical inspection of project sites conducted years after contract termination cannot be treated as automatically determinative of the condition at the time of commissioning; the causal connection must be independently evaluated by the arbitrator. (Para 23, 24, 31)
Issues: Whether the High Court should interfere with an interlocutory order of an arbitrator appointing an expert committee for physical verification of project sites under Section 26 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of contractual dispute and the arbitrator's order for an expert committee. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. rival contentions on the necessity and validity of technical inspection. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. standard for judicial intervention in interlocutory arbitral orders under articles 226/227. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. arbitrator's statutory power to appoint experts under section 26 and the nature of evidentiary objections. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 5. dismissal of petition due to lack of manifest perversity and directions for fair evaluation of the expert report. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
ORDER
1. The present petition calls in question an interlocutory order passed by the ld. Arbitrator under Section 26 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Act”), whereby a Technical Committee has been constituted to undertake physical verification and technical inspection of Off-Grid Solar PV Power Plants forming the subject matter of the arbitral proceedings. Respondent No. 2, the State Procurement and Supplies Agency (“SPSA”), awarded a contract to the petitioner pursuant to a Notice Inviting Tender for the supply, installation, testing and commissioning of Off-Grid Solar PV Power Plants of 3.5 KWP capacity at 1,013 project sites spread across 20 districts of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir. Agreements in furtherance thereof were executed between the parties on 16.09.2021 and 17.09.2021.
2. According to the petitioner, it completed installation and commissioning at all 1,013 project sites. The installations were thereafter physically verified and certified by the Jammu and Kashmir Energy Development Agency (“JAKEDA”), the State Nodal Agency under the Department of Science and Technology, Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir. Commissioning certificates dated 23.01.2024 and 29.01.2024 were issued in respect of 485 Panchayat Ghars in the Jammu Division and 528 Panchayat Ghars in the Kashmir Division respectively, thereby covering all 1,013 sites. The petitioner also relies upon a communication dated 05.10.2024 issued by the CEO/MD of Respondent No. 2, which, according to it, acknowledges completion of the project.
3. The petitioner claims that, notwithstanding completion of the contractual works, outstanding dues of approximately Rs.38.66 crore remained unpaid. It asserts that, having completed its obligations and with nothing further remaining to be performed, it terminated the contract on 08.06.2023. The project sites thereafter remained in the custody and control of the respondents and/or the respective Panchayat authorities. Disputes having arisen between the parties, the matter was referred to arbitration and an Arbitrator came to be appointed.
4. During the arbitral proceedings, Respondent No. 2 filed an application under Section 26 of the Act seeking appointment of an Expert Committee for physical verification and technical inspection of the project sites. By a detailed order dated 23.12.2025, the ld. Arbitrator declined the request for a wholesale post-closure inspection. At the same time, it expressly preserved its power to appoint an expert suo motu, or upon a renewed request by either party, should the necessity for such expert assistance arise at a subsequent stage.
5. On 25.03.2026, Respondent No. 2 filed a renewed application under Section 26 seeking appointment of an Expert Committee. The renewed request was founded, inter alia, upon district-level field-verification material stated to have been collected in March 2026 and a communication dated 25.03.2026 attributed to Mr. Fayaz Ahmad Bhat, Junior Assistant, stating that he had not been associated with the verification exercise relating to the Kashmir Division sites. The petitioner opposed the application by filing objections dated 17.04.2026. It contended that the renewed application merely sought to reopen an issue already decided; travelled beyond the pleadings; attempted to introduce a new
