Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Chief Engineer And Another vs Vistasta Construction Goodluck … on 24 April, 2026
Author: Sanjay Dhar
Bench: Sanjay Dhar
S. No.157
Suppl List 1
,,, IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
Uploaded on 29.04.2026
Arb. P No. 15/2021
CM(5098/2025),CM(5426/2021)
CM(6481/2021) CM(8349/2025)
CHIEF ENGINEER AND ANOTHER
.....Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr.Ilyas Nazir Laway,GA.
V/s
VISTASTA CONSTRUCTION GOODLUCK CONSTRUCTION AND
ORS
... ..Respondent(s)
Through : Mr. R.A.Jan, Sr. Advocate
with Mr.Ubaid Mir, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE
ORDER
24.04.2026
1. The petitioners, have through the medium of present petition
under Section 34 of the J&K Arbitration and Conciliation Act
1997 (hereinafter the Act of 1997), challenged award dated
23.04.2016 passed by the sole Arbitrator. During the course of
hearing, it was noted by this Court that the respondent/award
holder had preferred an application under Section 9 of the Act of
1997 before the Court of learned Principal District Judge,
Anantnag on 27.12.2010 which came to be decided by the said
Court on 28.06.2011. In terms of Section 42 of the Act of 1997,
where with respect to an arbitration agreement an application
Arb.P No. 15/2021 1|P a g e
under Part I of the said Act has been made in a Court, that Court
alone has the jurisdiction over the arbitral proceedings as well as
all subsequent applications arising out of the said agreement and
the arbitral proceedings have to be made in that same Court and
not in any other Court.
2. In view of aforesaid legal position, it was felt that the
petitioners ought to have filed the petition under Section 34 of
the Act of 1997 before the Court of learned Principal District
Judge Anantnag, but instead of doing so the petitioners have
filed the instant petition before this Court. The learned counsel
for the petitioners when confronted with this position had sought
time to address the arguments and the matter was adjourned for
today.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties on the aforesaid
issue and I have also perused record of the case.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the
Arbitrator was appointed pursuant to directions passed by this
Court in a petition under Section 11 of the Act of 1997 by virtue
of order dated 03.05.2023, therefore, this Court has jurisdiction
to entertain the instant petition. He has further contended that
the Supreme Court recently in the case of J&K Economic
Reconstruction Agency vs. Rash Builders India Pvt.Ltd.,
decided on15.04.2026 in SLP(C) @Diary No.44792 of 2025 has
Arb.P No. 15/2021 2|P a g e
held that petition under Section 34 of the Act of 1997 can be
filed before the Court located at the seat of arbitration and in this
case because arbitration proceedings were held at Srinagar, as
such, this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the present petition.
It has also been contended that the petition under Section 9 of
the Act of 1997 was dismissed by learned District Judge
Anantnag on the ground of lack of jurisdiction and, therefore,
filing of petition before the said Court would not come in the
way of entertaining of instant petition by this Court.
5. There is no dispute to the fact that the petition under Section
9 of the Act of 1997 came to be filed by the respondent herein
before the Court of learned Pr.District Judge Anantnag on
27.12.2010 and the same was dismissed vide judgment dated
28.06.2011 passed by the said Court. A perusal of the said
judgment would reveal that the same has not been dismissed by
the learned District Judge on the ground of lack of inherent
jurisdiction but it has been dismissed on the ground that the
Court has no jurisdiction to grant a relief relating to extension of
an agreement, which is determinable in its nature when the
contract stands already terminated. Thus, the contention of the
learned counsel for the petitioners that learned District Judge
Anantnag lacked inherent jurisdiction to entertain the petition
under Section 9 of the Act of 1997 is misconceived.
Arb.P No. 15/2021 3|P a g e
6. So far as the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the
case titled J&K Economic Reconstruction Agency vs. Rash
Builders India Pvt.Ltd.(supra) is concerned, the facts involved in
the said case were entirely different, inasmuch as, the Court was
dealing with an issue whether the jurisdiction of a Court has to
be determined with reference to the seat of the arbitration agreed
to by the parties in the contract or with reference to the venue of
the arbitration. It is in those circumstances that the Supreme
Court held that designation of seat of arbitration would
determine the Court which has jurisdiction over the arbitral
proceedings. The issue involved in the present case is entirely
different, hence the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the
aforesaid judgment is not applicable to the present case.
7. The third contention that has been raised by learned counsel
for the petitioners is that petition under Section 11 of the Act of
1997 was filed before this Court, pursuant where to Arbitrator
was appointed under the orders of this Court, therefore, the
instant petition can be entertained by the High Court.
8. I am afraid the aforesaid contention urged by learned
counsel for the petitioners is without any substance. The issue as
to whether the Court which deals with an application under
Section 11 of the Act of 1997, falls within the definition of Court
as contained in Section 2(1)(e) of the Act of 1997, has been
Arb.P No. 15/2021 4|P a g e
conclusively determined by a Full Bench of this Court in the
case of Ramesh Chand Kathuria and Anr. vs. M/S Trikuta
Chemicals Pvt.Ltd. and Anr., AIR 2015 J&K 52 by holding that
applications under various provisions of the Act which include
Section 8, Section 11 and interim measure under Section 17
dealt with by the authorities are not the Courts within the
meaning of Section 2(1)(e) of the Act. Therefore, Section 42 of
the Act is not attracted.
9. In view of aforesaid position of law, merely because
application under Section 11 of the Act of 1997 has been
decided by this Court cannot give jurisdiction to this Court to
entertain petition under Section 34 of the Act, if any of the
parties has invoked the jurisdiction of any other Court by filing
an application under Section 9 of the Act of 1997.
10. In the present case, the petition under Section 9 of the Act of
1997 was filed by the respondent before the Court of learned
Principal District Judge Anantnag. Therefore, all the subsequent
applications relating to arbitral proceedings, including petition
under Section 34 of the Act had to be filed before the same
Court and not before any other Court. The instant petition, as
such, ought not to have been entertained by this Court.
11. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents has
submitted that if this Court decided to transfer the writ petition
Arb.P No. 15/2021 5|P a g e
to the Court of learned Principal District Judge, Anantnag, the
interim order granted by this Court on 24.03.2021 needs to be
vacated. The issue whether the said order is required to be
continued or the same should be rescinded shall be gone into by
the Court of learned Principal District Judge, Anantnag,
notwithstanding the fact that the said order has been passed by
the High Court.
12. In view of the foregoing discussion, the petition is directed
to be transferred to the Court of learned Principal District Judge,
Anantnag for its disposal under law. It is pertinent to mention
here that Principal District Judge Anantnag stands designated as
Commercial Court and the subject matter of the present petition
being a commercial dispute in arbitration proceedings is required
to be decided by the said Court in its capacity as Commercial
Court.
13. The parties are directed to appear before the Commercial
Court (Principal District Judge) Anantnag on 02.06.2026. The
registry shall remit original record of the case to the transferee
Court.
(SANJAY DHAR)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR
24.04.2026
Sarveeda Nissar
1. Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No
Whether the order is reportable: Yes
Sarveeda Nissar Arb.P No. 15/2021 6|P a g e
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
every page at bottom left side
29.04.2026 10:41