Jammu & Kashmir High Court
B V Ahuja vs Neeraj Mohan Chief Engineer Project on 6 July, 2026
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND Serial No. 30
LADAKH
AT JAMMU
CCP(S) No. 163/2024 in
CFA No. 18/2014 c/w
CCP(S) No. 167/2024
B V Ahuja .....Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Ateet Spolia, Advocate
vs
Neeraj Mohan Chief Engineer Project ..... Respondent(s)
Sampark Union of India C/O 56, APO
Through: Mr. Vishal Sharma, (Sr. Adv.) DSGI with
Mr. Sumant Sudan, Advocate
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE
ORDER
06.07.2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
2. At the relevant time, the petitioner was appointed as the Arbitrator in
respect of an arbitral dispute between the parties. The arbitral award
subsequently became the subject matter of CFA No. 18/2014, filed
under Section 39 of the Jammu and Kashmir Arbitration Act, 2002
(1945 A.D.) (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), challenging the
judgment dated 11.01.2014 passed by the learned Principal District
Judge, Jammu.
3. The award rendered by the petitioner was assailed by the Union of
India. This Court, vide judgment dated 09.05.2022, set aside the arbitral
award passed in favour of M/s D. Khosla and Company and remitted
the matter to the petitioner for fresh adjudication of the claims in
accordance with law.
2 CCP(S) No. 163/2024 in
CFA No. 18/2014 c/w
CCP(S) No. 167/2024
4. While disposing of CFA No. 18/2014, the Coordinate Bench of this
Court observed as follows:
For determination of claims of the contractor i.e.
claim Nos. (1), (2), (4), (8), (13), (15), (16) & (17), the
matter is remitted back to the arbitrator. However, if
for any reason whatsoever, the learned Arbitrator,
who has passed the award, is not available or is
otherwise incapable to conduct further proceedings;
matter shall be referred to Sh. Vinod Sharma, Retired
Chief Engineer, Resident of H.No. 42, Sector-1-A,
Trikuta Nagar, Jammu, Mobile No. 9419180988, who
shall enter the reference and decide the claims of the
contractor aforesaid within a period of four months.
The arbitrator is left free to determine his fee having
regard to the 4th Schedule of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996.
5. The petitioner submits that, after the matter was remitted to him, he
rendered a fresh arbitral award and placed the same before this Court to
be taken on record. In addition, thereto, he sought payment of arbitral
fees from the Union of India in the sum of ₹19,75,000/-.
6. Mr. Vishal Sharma, learned DSGI, contended that the fresh award
rendered by the petitioner-arbitrator has itself been assailed by the
respondent under Sections 30 and 33 of the Jammu and Kashmir
Arbitration Act, 2002 (1945 A.D.) by way of a separate petition before
this Court. He submitted that the petitioner has misconstrued the
directions contained in the judgment dated 09.05.2022 and that the
present contempt petition is wholly misconceived and not maintainable.
He further argued that, having already submitted the award before this
Court on 30.09.2022 and simultaneously sought payment of arbitral
3 CCP(S) No. 163/2024 in
CFA No. 18/2014 c/w
CCP(S) No. 167/2024
fees, and since the award is presently under challenge in independent
proceedings, the petitioner cannot invoke the contempt jurisdiction of
this Court for enforcement of his claim.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner, placing reliance upon the
judgment dated 09.05.2022, submitted that the Court had expressly left
it open to the arbitrator to determine his fee and had also directed that
the same be disbursed. It was contended that the contractor-firm has
already paid its share of the arbitral fee and that the balance amount of
₹19,75,000/-, payable by the Union of India, remains outstanding.
8. It is fairly conceded during the course of hearing that, pursuant to the
remand of the matter by this Court for fresh consideration, the
petitioner-arbitrator reheard the parties and rendered a fresh award,
which has since been challenged by the respondent in separate
proceedings. In compliance with the directions of this Court, the
petitioner, after pronouncing the award on 16.09.2022, submitted the
arbitral record before this Court on 30.09.2022. While doing so, he also
informed the Court that a sum of ₹19,75,000/- was payable towards his
arbitral fee and requested that the same be remitted in terms of the
judgment dated 09.05.2022.
9. A careful reading of the judgment dated 09.05.2022 reveals that the
Court merely observed that, since the proceedings were governed by the
old Act and the original arbitrator, who had earlier rendered the award,
might not be available or might be incapable of conducting the
proceedings upon remand, the matter could, in such an eventuality, be
referred to Shri Vinod Sharma, Retired Chief Engineer, who was
directed to enter upon the reference and decide the claims of the
4 CCP(S) No. 163/2024 in
CFA No. 18/2014 c/w
CCP(S) No. 167/2024
contractor within a period of four months. The Court further left it open
to the said arbitrator to fix his fee in accordance with the Fourth
Schedule to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The directions
were thus purely contingent in nature. As a matter of fact, the petitioner,
being the original arbitrator, neither expressed any unwillingness nor
was shown to have become incapable of proceeding with the reference.
On the contrary, he reheard the matter and rendered the fresh award on
16.09.2022. Significantly, the order dated 09.05.2022 contains no
direction or mandate requiring either of the parties to pay the arbitral
fee.
10. Section 39 of the Jammu and Kashmir Arbitration Act confers upon the
arbitrator a lien over the arbitral award for the costs of arbitration,
including the fee claimed by the arbitrator. Sub-section (3) thereof
authorises any party to apply to the Court for determination of the fee
demanded by the arbitrator, unless such fee has already been fixed by a
written agreement between the parties and the arbitral tribunal. In such
proceedings, the arbitral tribunal is entitled to appear and be heard.
Further, sub-section (4) empowers the Court to pass such orders as it
considers appropriate regarding the costs of arbitration where any
dispute arises concerning such costs and the arbitral award makes no
adequate provision in that regard. It is not in dispute that, while
submitting the arbitral record before this Court on 30.09.2022, the
petitioner also sought a direction for remittance of his arbitral fee.
11. It has also been brought to the notice of this Court that the award
rendered by the petitioner is already under challenge in separate
proceedings pending before this Court. Consequently, any dispute
5 CCP(S) No. 163/2024 in
CFA No. 18/2014 c/w
CCP(S) No. 167/2024
relating to the payment of arbitral fees properly falls within the scope of
those proceedings. Moreover, the order dated 09.05.2022 neither
confers any enforceable right upon the petitioner nor contains any
mandatory direction requiring the respondent-Union of India to pay the
arbitral fee. The order merely provided that, in the event the original
arbitrator was unavailable or incapable of continuing with the
proceedings, Shri Vinod Sharma could be appointed as arbitrator and
would be at liberty to determine his fee in accordance with the Fourth
Schedule. A plain reading of the order leaves no manner of doubt that
no writ of mandamus or mandatory direction was issued for payment of
arbitral fees. Since the petitioner has already raised his claim regarding
arbitral fees in the proceedings wherein the award dated 16.09.2022 is
under challenge, the said issue can appropriately be adjudicated therein.
Resort to the contempt jurisdiction of this Court is, therefore, wholly
misconceived. The present contempt petition is accordingly devoid of
merit and is dismissed.
12. The petitioner shall, however, be at liberty to pursue such remedy as
may be available to him under Section 39 of the Jammu and Kashmir
Arbitration Act.
(Sanjay Parihar)
Judge
Jammu
06.07.2026
Diksha
