Case Details

Serial 1 Supplementary List HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT SRINAGAR … AP no. 4/2019 Date of order: 08.04.2019 Rash Builders India Private Limited Vs. Hindustan Construction Company Limited Coram: Hon’ble The Chief Justice Appearing Counsel: For Petitioner(s): Mr. I. Sofi, Adv. For Respondent(s): Notice returnable on 13.5.2019. List on 13th May 2019. (GITA MITTAL) Chief Justice Srinagar 08-04-2019 N Ahmad [email protected] 2019-04-10T11:29:47+0530 NISSAR A BHAT I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

S. No. 6 Reg. list (proceedings held through Video Conferencing with the Bench at the residence of Hon’ble the Chief Justice and counsel and the parties in the court. HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT SRINAGAR AP No. 4/2019 (Arb P 4/2019) Date of order: 15.05.2019 Rash Builders India Private Limited Vs. Hindustan Construction Company Limited CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE. Appearance: For petitioner(s): Mr. Z. A. Shah, Sr. Advocate with Mr. A. Hanan, Advocate For respondent(s): There is no report of service upon respondent. Subject to the petitioner taking steps, issue fresh notice to respondent returnable on 10th July, 2019. List on 10th July, 2019. (GITA MITTAL) CHIEF JUSTICE SRINAGAR 15.05.2019 “Manzoor” [email protected] 2019-05-17T16:23:38+0530 MANZOOR UL HASSAN DAR

Serial No. 14 Regular List IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT SRINAGAR AP No. 04/2019 Rash Builders India Private Ltd through: Mr. I. Sofi, Advocate ……Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s) V/s Hindustan construction Co. Ltd Through: Ms. Suman Sharma, Advocate Mr. Muzaffar, Advocate ……Respondent(s) Coram: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ORDER 10-07-2019 It is submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that they have no objection to the substitution of arbitrator in place of Justice S. B. Sinha who has been appointed as sole arbitrator in the matter but has expired before the arbitration proceedings culminated. It is also submitted that the arbitrator must be located in Mumbai. Mr. Sofi, learned counsel for the petitioners sought short adjournment to take instructions and submits that he has no objection to the filling up of the vacancy of the arbitrator necessitated due to the demise of Justice S. B. Sinha. In the meanwhile, learned counsel for the respondents shall provide list of arbitrators to the Court by or before the next date. List on 18th July, 2019. (GITA MITTAL) CHIEF JUSTICE SRINAGAR 10-07-2019 Sakeena [email protected] 2019-07-17T11:11:20+0530 SAKEENA MOLVI I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

AP No. 04/2019 Page 1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT SRINAGAR AP No. 04/2019 Rash Builders India Private Limited ---Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Z. A. Shah, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Imtiyaz Sofi, Adv. V/s Hindustan Construction Company Limited ---Respondent(s) Through: Ms. Suman Sharma, Adv. & Mr. Manzoor Ahmad Dar, Adv. 1. The present application has been filed under Section 15 (2) read with Section 11 of the Jammu and Kashmir Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1997. Inasmuch as there is no material dispute with the outcome of this application, it is necessary to go into the factual matrix in great detail, however, let it be said that Hindustan Construction Company Limited had bid successfully for construction of the Mughal Road from Bufliaz (Poonch) to Shopian (Pulwama) pursuant to the NIT issued by the Government of Jammu and Kashmir. Under the terms of the contract, the Hindustan Construction Company-respondent herein was authorized to appoint a sub-contractor to carry out part of the construction work. 2. On 24th August 2005, Hindustan Construction Company Limited appointed Rash Builders India Private Limited as a sub-contractor for the execution of the entire main contract. Disputes arose between the parties resulting in termination of the work order in April 2008. As the disputes could not be resolved, steps were taken for appointment of an arbitrator in terms of the Arbitration agreement between the parties. 3. Rash Builders India Private Limited filed an application being Arbitration Application No. 15/2010 under Section 11 of the Jammu and CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ORDER 18.07.2019 Serial No. 4 Advance List AP No. 04/2019 Page 2 of 4 Kashmir Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1997 for appointment of an arbitrator. This application came to be allowed by the Designated Court by an order passed on 29th December 2010 when late Justice S. B. Sinha (Retired) who came to be appointed as an arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes, claims and counter claims of the parties. 4. This order was carried in an appeal by the Hindustan Construction Company Limited which was registered as Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s) 4275/2011 before the Supreme Court of India. The appeal was rejected by the Supreme Court by an order passed on 22nd July 2013. This order for expediency is reproduced hereunder:- “By the impugned order dated 29th December, 2010 the designated Judge of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Srinagar has appointed Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha, Former Judge of this Court as the sole Arbitrator under Section 11 of the Jammu and Kashmir Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1997. Aggrieved the petitioner has filed this Special Leave Petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had entered into a contract with the State of Jammu and Kashmir which has an arbitration clause and the petitioner had entered into a separate sub-contract with the respondent which also has an arbitration clause (Clause 29). He submitted that Clause 29 of the contract between the petitioner and the respondent provided that disputes between the petitioner and the respondent shall be finally resolved in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the sole arbitrator to be nominated by the Chairman and Managing Director of the petitioner and the venue shall be at Mumbai and the contract between the petitioner and the respondent will be governed as per the laws of India and jurisdiction of only Mumbai courts shall apply. He vehemently submitted that in view of the aforesaid Clause 29, the petitioner could not have moved the Jammu and Kashmir High Court at Srinagar to appoint Arbitrator under Section 11 of the Jammu and Kashmir Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1997. We, however, find, that there are disputes between the petitioner and the respondent which need to be arbitrated and an Arbitrator has already been appointed by the learned designated Judge of the High AP No. 04/2019 Page 3 of 4 Court to resolve the disputes between the parties. We are, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court in appointing Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha as Arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the parties. However, considering the fact that under Clause 29 of the contract between the petitioner and the respondent, the venue of arbitration is to be at Mumbai and award if any passed by the Arbitrator will be challenged only in Mumbai, the venue of arbitrator will be Mumbai and the Award will be only challenged in an appropriate court at Mumbai. The parties may, however, agree to another venue for arbitration as per the convenience of the Arbitrator as well as the parties. So far as the fees of the Arbitrator are concerned, we leave it open to the learned Arbitrator to fix his own fees. We, accordingly, delete the direction in the impugned order regarding fees fixed for the Arbitrator. We make it clear that any observations made in the impugned order of the High Court will not influence the Arbitrator or the Courts at Mumbai to decide the matter on the merits of the claims. The Special Leave Petition stands disposed of in the above terms.” 5. Before the arbitration proceedings could culminate, the learned Arbitrator unfortunately expired on 19th March 2019 when the proceedings were at the stage of final arguments. The writ petitioner before me has stated that the counsel for the petitioner had even concluded her oral submissions. 6. By way of the instant application, the applicant has sought appointment of an arbitrator to fill the vacancy created on account of demise of the learned Arbitrator. Learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that they have no objection to the substitution of the vacancy provided that the venue of the arbitration is maintained at Mumbai in terms of the agreement between the parties. 7. In view thereof, I hereby appoint Justice D.K. Jain (Retired) as an arbitrator to decide the disputes, claims and counter claims between the parties. It is left to the learned arbitrator to fix his own fees. The learned arbitrator shall be entitled to all administrative expenses as well as costs of his travel, boarding and lodging. The costs of the arbitrator shall be borne by both the parties in equal shares. AP No. 04/2019 Page 4 of 4 8. It is further directed that the arbitration shall proceed from the stage at which it was left by the erstwhile arbitrator. 9. It shall be the responsibility of the respondent to ensure that the record is delivered from the office of Late Justice S. B. Sinha (Retired) to the newly appointed arbitrator. 10. It is directed that the parties shall appear before the newly appointed arbitrator at 5:00 pm on 16th August 2019 for directions. 11. Let a copy of this order be sent by the Registry to the newly appointed arbitrator. This petition is allowed in the above terms. (GITA MITTAL) CHIEF JUSTICE Srinagar 18.07.2019 Altaf [email protected] 2019-07-22T17:19:33+0530 MOHAMMAD ALTAF NIMA I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document [email protected] 2019-07-22T17:19:33+0530 MOHAMMAD ALTAF NIMA I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document [email protected] 2019-07-22T17:19:33+0530 MOHAMMAD ALTAF NIMA I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document [email protected] 2019-07-22T17:19:33+0530 MOHAMMAD ALTAF NIMA I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT SRINAGAR AP No. 4/2019 Rash Builders India Private Limited ---Petitioner/Appellant(s) Through: None V/s Hindustan Construction Company Limited. ---Respondent(s) Through: None CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ORDER 16.08.2019 On account of restrictions on the movement of traffic in the State, counsel for the parties are not available. Record of the case has not been received. Interim orders, if any, to continue till further orders. List again on 14th October 2019. (GITA MITTAL) CHIEF JUSTICE Srinagar 16.08.2019 Altaf Serial No. 5 Advance List [email protected] 2019-08-16T16:04:30+0530 MOHAMMAD ALTAF NIMA I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AT SRINAGAR (Through Video Conference) CM No. 2774/2021 in A.P. No. 09/2019 (Arb P No. 04/2019) Rash Builders India Private Ltd. …..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Zaffar Shah, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Hanan Kalwal , Advocate. Vs J&K Economic Reconstruction Agency. .…. Respondent(s) Through: None. Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, JUDGE ORDER 14.05.2021 Issue notice to the counsel opposite for appearance on the next date. List again on 19.5.2021. (Dhiraj Singh Thakur) Judge Srinagar 14.05.2021 Naresh Case No. 109 (Suppl.-1 Cause List) [email protected] 2021-05-15T14:10:32+0530 NARESH KUMAR I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AT SRINAGAR (Through Video Conference) CM No. 2774/2021 in A.P No. 04/2019 (Arb P No. 04/2019) Rash Builders India Pvt. Ltd. …..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Hanan Kalwal, Advocate vice Mr. Z.A. Shah, Sr. Advocate. Vs Hindustan Construction Company Limited .…. Respondent(s) Through: None. Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, JUDGE ORDER 19.05.2021 Notice be served on the respondent through email provided by the counsel for the petitioner. List again on 4.6.2021. (Dhiraj Singh Thakur) Judge Srinagar 19.05.2021 Naresh Case No. 510 (Supplemantary-1 (A.N) Cause List) [email protected] 2021-05-20T11:01:51+0530 NARESH KUMAR I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AT SRINAGAR (Through Video Conference) CM No. 2774/2021 in A.P No. 04/2019 (Arb P No. 04/2019) Rash Builders India Pvt. Ltd. …..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Hanan Kalwal, Advocate vice Mr. Z.A. Shah, Sr. Advocate. Vs Hindustan Construction Company Limited .…. Respondent(s) Through: None. Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, JUDGE ORDER 19.05.2021 Notice be served on the respondent through email provided by the counsel for the petitioner. List again on 4.6.2021. (Dhiraj Singh Thakur) Judge Srinagar 19.05.2021 Naresh Case No. 510 (Supplemantary-1 (A.N) Cause List) [email protected] 2021-05-20T11:01:51+0530 NARESH KUMAR I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document