Advocates:
['RAHUL SHARMA', '', 'PRANAV KOHLI', 'SR ADV', 'SOURABH MALHOTRA']

h475

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH

AT JAMMU

Reserved on :17.02.2022

Pronounced on : 09.05.2022

(through virtual mode)

Union of India

...Appellant(s)

Through:- Mr. Pranav Kohli, Sr. Advocate with

Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate

V/s

M/s D.Khosla and Company

...Respondent(s)

Through:-Mr. Sourabh Malhotra, Advocate

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE

JUDGMENT

1.

Union of India through Chief Engineer (P) Sampark is in appeal

under Section 39 of J&K Arbitration Act, 2002 (1945 A.D.) [ <the Act=]

against the order and judgment of the Principal District Judge, Jammu [<the

Court below=] dated 11.01.2014 passed in File No.42/Award titled M/s D

Khosla and Company v. Chief Engineer (P) Sampark. The Court below

vide its judgment dated 11.01.2014, impugned in this appeal, has dismissed

the application of the Union of India filed under Section 30 and 33 of the

Act for setting aside the arbitral award dated 04.01.2008 passed by Brig

(Retd.) B.V.Ahuja, the sole arbitrator.

CFA No.18/2014

IA Nos.91/2014, 2/2015, 3/2015 &

1/2017

2 CFA No.18/2014

2.

Before adverting to the grounds of challenge pleaded and urged by

the appellant-Union of India to sustain challenge to the impugned order of

the Court below, it would be necessary to allude to the background facts

leading upto the filing of instant appeal.

Pursuant to an NIT issued by appellant for allotment of work of

<Design and Construction of Permanent Bridge Over River Niara Tawi at

65.51 on Akhnoor-Poonch Road in J&K State under Project Sampark= the

respondent-the contractor was found to be the successful bidder and

accordingly, a contract agreement was entered into between the Union of

India and the contractor on 14.06.1987. The lumpsum value of the contract

to be executed by the contractor was Rs.90,59,000/- with the completion

period of 24 months. The date of commencement of the work was stated as

8^th August, 1988 and was to be completed and handed over by the

contractor by or before 7^th August, 1990. It appears that on account of

certain delays and technical problems, the work could not be completed

within the stipulated period. On the request of the contractor, time to

complete the work in question was extended from time to time and as per

the last extension granted, the contractor was to complete the work by 31^st

March, 1993. It appears that the contractor during the currency of the

contract approached the appellant for interim arbitration on the ground that

certain disputes between the parties were affecting both, progress of the

work and the payments. The Union of India did not oblige in the beginning

but later agreed to interim arbitration, which, however, did not materialize

thereafter. But, instead, the contract was terminated on 14.06.1993. Feeling

3 CFA No.18/2014

aggrieved by the termination of the contract agreement by the appellant, the

contractor approached the designated authority (Director General of Border

Roads) for appointment of an arbitrator under Clause-70 of the General

Conditions of the contract. The designated authority did not act on the

request of the contractor, which constrained him to approach the Court of

Principal District Judge, Jammu for appointment of an arbitrator in terms of

Clause 70 of the General Conditions of Contract to adjudicate upon the

disputes between the parties arising out of the contract. While the matter

was pending consideration of the Court below