Jammu and Kashmir High Court
Arb P/31/2026 of MPB CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED Vs UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS (MINISTRY OF DEFENCE) on 11 September 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR Arb P No.31/2026 MPB Construction Private Limited …Petitioner(s). Through: Mr. S. M. Saleem, Advocate. Vs. Union of India and others. ….Respondent(s) Through: Mr. T. M. Shamsi, DSGI, with Ms. Rehana Qayoom, Assisting
Sr. No.12
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
Arb P No.31/2026
MPB Construction Private Limited
…Petitioner(s).
Through:
Mr. S. M. Saleem, Advocate.
Vs.
Union of India and others.
….Respondent(s)
Through:
Mr. T. M. Shamsi, DSGI, with
Ms. Rehana Qayoom, Assisting Counsel.
CORAM:
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
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.
O R D E R
11.09.2026
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of an arbitrator.
2. The petitioner is a company engaged in execution of major civil construction works. It is submitted that on invitation of the tenders for construction of “provision of OTM Accommodation for Infantry Battalion (Phase-II) at BB Cantt Srinagar” the petitioner company also participated in the tendering process and, after evaluation of the bids, his bid was accepted and Contract Agreement No.CESZ-10/2011-12 came into existence for an amount of Rs.23,22,87,866.02. Subsequent thereto Work order dated 23.05.2011 also came to be issued. Accordingly, the petitioner mobilized his resources and completed the work. It is submitted that after completion of the work dispute with regard to final bill and other additional works arose. Further it is submitted that respondents were time and again asked for dissolution of the disputes, however, the respondents failed to act and the petitioner was constrained to invoke the arbitration clause contained in the agreement and sought appointment of an arbitrator.
However, the respondents are stated to have failed to act, hence the present petition.
3. Heard. Notice.
4. Served with advance copy of the petition, Ms. Rehana Qayoom, Assisting Counsel to Mr. T. M. Shamsi, DSGI, present in Court, accepts notice. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently disputes/denies the claim that is sought to be made by the petitioner. It is urged that the claim of the petitioner is apparently misconceived and untenable, and thus deserves to be rejected. However, the existence of the arbitration clause, as aforesaid, and its invocation by the petitioner is not disputed. He, accordingly, submits that let an arbitrator be appointed but the respondents be granted liberty to raise all possible pleas in this regard before the arbitrator.
5. Accordingly, in the wake of the position sketched out above and in terms of the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondents, the petition is allowed. And, with consent of learned counsel for the parties, Mr. B. B. Dhar, B-203 Medinova Apartments, Plot No.50, Secto 56, Gurgaon-122011 (Mob. No.9910025528) is appointed as the sole arbitrator. Who shall proceed with the matter in accordance with the provisions of the Act. And to make an award within the time provided in the Act itself after charging the prescribed fee along with incidental expenses to be shared by the parties. The respondents are at liberty to raise all the possible pleas/ objections as regards the subject matter before the learned Arbitrator.
6. Registry to send a copy of this order to the learned arbitrator
(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI) CHIEF JUSTICE Srinagar 11.09.2026 Abdul Qayoom, Secy.
Abdul Qayoom Lone I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 16.09.2026 10:18