Jammu & Kashmir High Court
2026:Jklhc-Jmu:484 vs University Of Jammu on 20 February, 2026
Author: Sanjeev Kumar
Bench: Sanjeev Kumar
2026:JKLHC-JMU:484
Sr. No. 03
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Arb P No. 6/2025
Date of pronouncement : 20.02.2026
Date of Uploading : 23.02.2026
Shekhar Enterprises Engineer & Builder Contractor, .....Petitioner(s)
Congress Bazaar Pathankot through its Partner
Chander Shekhar Sharma,
S/o Sh. Subash Chander Sharma,
R/o H. No. 2294, Sector-18, Abrol Nagar,
Pathankot-145001, Punjab.
Through :- Mr. G S Thakur, Advocate
v/s
1. University of Jammu, .....Respondent(s)
through its Vice Chancellor,
B R Ambedkar Road, Jammu.
2. Registrar,
University of Jammu,
B R Ambedkar Road, Jammu.
3. Executive Engineer,
University of Jammu,
Works Department,
B R Ambedkar Road, Jammu.
Through :- Mr. Manik Bhardawaj, Advocate
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE
ORDER (ORAL)
1. The petitioner was allotted contract work for the construction of a Boys
Hostel Civil and Sanitary work at Kathua Campus of Jammu University,
pursuant to an agreement dated 29.01.2013 executed between the
petitioner and Respondent No. 3/Executive Engineer of Respondent No.
1.
2. The petitioner has contended that there was a delay in execution of the
work owing to one reason or another. However, in terms of letter dated
Arb P No. 6/2025 2 2026:JKLHC-JMU:484
19.05.2014 issued by the Assistant Executive Engineer, it was confirmed
that the work actually commenced on 04.11.2013 after the site was made
available to the contractor. It is further stated that the petitioner
completed the work and raised the claims amounting to Rs. 43,31,861/-
including the earnest money and 10% reserve on work done, however,
the said payment was not released. It is also stated that the petitioner is
entitled to claim an amount of Rs. 2.605 Cr. Along with interest @ 18%.
3. The petitioner claims to have made various representations to the
respondents, seeking release of the payment or, in the alternative, referral
of the dispute to the arbitrator, but to no avail. The petitioner has placed
on record a communication dated 21.10.2024 requesting settlement of
the dispute or in the alternative treat the same as a notice invoking
arbitration in terms of condition No. 26 of General Conditions of
Contract forming part of the contract agreement. On the basis of these
facts, the petitioner has sought appointment of an arbitrator to adjudicate
the dispute arising out of the NIT No. UWD/12-13/4009-20 dated
23.01.2013.
4. The respondents have filed their response stating therein that the
petitioner was required to complete the contract work within a period of
twelve months as per the terms and conditions of the contract agreement,
but inordinate delay was caused by the petitioner itself in execution of
the work. It is further stated that the contract provides that any dispute,
doubt, difference, or question of any kind, except certain matters, shall
be referred to the Vice Chancellor, who has to act as an Arbitrator. The
Arb P No. 6/2025 3 2026:JKLHC-JMU:484
respondents have denied that they are under any obligation to pay the
amount claimed by the petitioner.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. The existence of the arbitration agreement is not disputed by the
respondents. In view of the admitted existence of an arbitration
agreement and the failure of the respondents to refer the dispute to
arbitration despite due notice, this Court finds that the pre-conditions for
invocation of jurisdiction under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 stand satisfied. Although it is the stand of the
respondents that Vice Chancellor has to act as an Arbitrator, the learned
counsel for the respondents has fairly conceded that the said course is
impermissible due to subsequent amendment.
7. It is well settled that where a named Arbitrator becomes ineligible or is
unable to act, an independent and impartial Arbitrator can be appointed
to ensure adjudication of the disputes between the parties. The disputes
raised by the petitioner arise out of the execution of the contract and are
arbitrable in nature. Accordingly, Sh. S. R. Gandhi, Retired District
Judge is hereby appointed as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the
disputes between the parties arising out of NIT No. UWD/12-13/4009-20
dated 23.01.2013 and the agreement dated 29.01.2013.
8. The learned Arbitrator shall enter upon the reference after furnishing the
disclosure as required under Section 12 (1) of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 and shall conduct the arbitral proceedings in
accordance with the provisions of the Act. The fee of the learned
Arb P No. 6/2025 4 2026:JKLHC-JMU:484
Arbitrator shall be governed by the Fourth Schedule of the Act, unless
otherwise agreed between the parties.
9. The Registry shall send a copy of this order to the learned Arbitrator
forthwith.
10. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms.
(Sanjeev Kumar)
Judge
JAMMU
20.02.2026
Manan
Whether the order is speaking : Yes/No
Whether the order is reportable : Yes/No
