Authority: High Court of Meghalaya at Shillong

Order Date: 28 October 2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioner: M/s Pushkarraj Constructions Pvt. Ltd., represented by Director Mr. Bharat Bhasin, 5/3C, N.C Sengupta Sarani, Dum Dum Kolkata-700080.
  • Respondent No. 1: Union of India through Chief Engineer, Shillong Zone, Military Engineer Service, Spread Eagle Falls, Shillong-793001.
  • Respondent No. 2: Engineer‑in‑Chief, Military Engineer Services, MoD Integrated HQ, Ministry of Defence (Army), Kashmir House, Rajaji Marg, New Delhi-110011.
  • The dispute concerns the agreement between the contractor and the Military Engineer Service relating to construction works (specifics not detailed in the order).
  • The matter was before the High Court under the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. An earlier order dated 26.10.2026 sought appointment of an arbitrator.
  • Dr. N. Mozika, ASGI for the respondents, informed the Court that Shri Vijender Kumar Jain had already been appointed as arbitrator in other similar matters involving the same contractor and recommended his appointment as sole arbitrator.

Final Outcome

  • Shri Vijender Kumar Jain is hereby appointed as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate all disputes arising out of and in connection with the referenced agreement.
  • The petitioner must communicate a copy of this order, together with contact details and other particulars of the parties, to the Sole Arbitrator within two (2) weeks from the date of this order.
  • The Sole Arbitrator is instructed to forward the Statutory Statement of Disclosure under Section 11(8) read with Section 12(1) of the A&C Act, 1996 to the applicant’s advocates for filing in the Court Registry; a copy shall also be furnished to the respondents.
  • Both parties shall appear before the Sole Arbitrator on dates and at places to be indicated for fixing a schedule of pleadings, examination of witnesses (if any), and hearing timetable.
  • All arbitral costs and fees of the Arbitral Tribunal shall initially be borne equally by the parties, subject to any adjustment by the final award on costs.
  • The application is disposed of, with the Court noting that the order is made on the concession offered by the respondents due to the peculiar nature of the case.

Topics: Arbitration, Construction Contract, Legal Dispute