Jammu and Kashmir High Court
Arb P/12/2025 of CHIEF ENGINEER (ROADS AND BUILDINGS) KASHMIR Vs M/S DAR BUILDERS THROUGH NASIR AHMAD DAR on 11 September 2026
OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR (Through Virtual Mode) Arb P No. 12/2025 CM No. 2822/2025 CM No. 2823/2025 Chief Engineer (Roads and Buildings) Kashmir. …..Petitioner(s) Through: None. Vs M/s Dar Builders …Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Manzoor A . Dar, Advocate Coram:
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
(Through Virtual Mode)
Arb P No. 12/2025
CM No. 2822/2025
CM No. 2823/2025
Chief Engineer (Roads and Buildings)
Kashmir.
…..Petitioner(s)
Through: None.
Vs
M/s Dar Builders
…Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Manzoor A. Dar, Advocate
Coram:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAHZAD AZEEM, JUDGE
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
(11.09.2026)
1. Objections stand filed on behalf of the respondent, wherein, inter-alia the preliminary objection to the maintainability of the petition under Section 34 of the J&K Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1997 is raised mainly on the ground that the arbitration proceedings in question had commenced under the J&K Arbitration Act, Svt. 2002 (1945 A.D), therefore, this petition under Section 34 of the J&K Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1997 is not maintainable.
2. Learned counsel for the respondent in support of this preliminary objection has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Engineer Builder & Associates Vs. UOI and ors; 2014 AIR SC 1380 and judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench titled UOI and S. No. 01
2 Arb P No. 12/2025
ors. Vs. Engineer Builders & Associates; 2010 (3) JKJ 651 , which was upheld by Hon’ble Supreme Court also.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently argued that in view of the settled proposition of law, this petition is not maintainable.
4. Be that as it may, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the instant petition.
5. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed for non- prosecution.
(SHAHZAD AZEEM) JUDGE JAMMU
11.09.2026
Tarun/PS
Tarun Kumar Gupta 2026.09.14 14.36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document