M/S Jain Builders Vs Union of India through General Manager… — Arbitration

[2025:RJ-JP:49598]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Arbitration Application No. 63/2025

M/s Jain Builders, Opposite Jain Temple, 142/24, Mahaveer Marg, Kesarganj, Ajmer Through Its Sole Proprietor- Sanjeev Jain S/o Lt Kailash Chand Jain Aged 60 Years

¶5

----Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Union Of India Through General Manager, North - Western Railway, Near Jawahar Circle, Malviya Nagar, H.Q. Jaipur302017

¶8

Divisional Railway Manager (WA), North-Western Railway, DRM Office, Ajmer- 305001.

¶9

Senior Divisional Engineer (East), North-Western Railway, Divisional Office, Ajmer-305001.

¶10

----Respondents/Non-Applicants

¶11

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.	Harshit Mittal
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	Abhi Goyal

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA

¶13

Judgment

¶14

05/12/2025

¶15

The present arbitration application has been filed for the appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

¶16

Learned counsel for the applicant draws the attention of this Court to Clause 64.(1)(i) of the Arbitration Agreement, which is

¶17

reproduced as under:

¶18

“ 64.(1) Demand For Arbitration : 64.(1) (i) In the event of any dispute or difference between the parties hereto as to the construction or operation of this contract, or the respective rights and liabilities of the parties on any matter in question, dispute or difference on any account or as to the withholding by the Railway of any certificate to which the contractor may claim to be entitled to, or if the Railway fails

(2 of 3)

[2025:RJ-JP:49598]

[ARBAP-63/2025]

to make a decision within 120 days, then and in any such case, but except in any of the "excepted matters" referred to in Clause 63 of these Conditions, the contractor, after 120 days but within 180 days of his presenting his final claim on disputed matters shall demand in writing that the dispute or difference be referred to arbitration. ”

¶23

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant, vide his letter dated 12.08.2025 and 30.08.2024, issued a notice for appointment of an arbitrator in respect of his claims amounting to Rs.5,98,357/-. The said notice was replied by the respondents, who, however, appointed an arbitrator only for one of the claims amounting to Rs.1,51,000/-, vide their letter dated 26.11.2024. In these circumstances, the applicant has filed the present application seeking appointment of an arbitrator.

¶24

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that arbitrator had already been appointed, but the applicant did not appear before the arbitrator, he further submits that the matter falls under the category of “Excepted Cases” and therefore, the present application for appointment of an arbitrator is not maintainable.

¶25

Heard.

¶26

This Court finds that the objection raised by the respondents, to the effect that an arbitrator has already been appointed, cannot be sustained. The reason being that, while appointing an arbitrator, the respondents cannot restrict the appointment to any specific claim. The appointment is required to be a simplicitor appointment of an arbitrator. Therefore, the appointment made by the respondents vide letter dated 26.11.2024 cannot be treated as an appointment of an arbitrator as by it the respondents have confined the claims of claimants.

[2025:RJ-JP:49598]

[ARBAP-63/2025]

(3 of 3)

Further, this Court finds that in D.B. Civil Reference No.1/2024; M/s Devender Singh Vs. Union Of India decided on 14.11.2025 held that the question of arbitrability or nonarbitrability will have to be examined by the concerned arbitrator who is to be appointed by the Court in terms of Section 11(6) of the Act.

¶31

Considering the same, the present arbitration application is allowed. Mr. Satish Chandra Mittal (Retd. District Judge), resident of 152/61, Shipra Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur-20, is appointed as sole Arbitrator to decide the dispute between the parties.

¶32

The arbitrator shall be paid fee in accordance with the Fourth Schedule of the Act, as amended. The fee of the arbitrator will be equally borne by both the parties.

¶33

The Arbitrator is requested to complete the proceedings as per time limit specified under Section 29A of the Act.

¶34

With the above observations, the present Arbitration Application stands disposed of.

¶35

All pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

¶36

Copy of this order be sent to the appointed Arbitrator.

¶37

(BIPIN GUPTA),J

¶38

Sudha/120

M/S Jain Builders v. Union of India through General Manager, North - Western Railway

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Jain Builders v. Union of India through General Manager, North - Western Railway

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Jaipur Valmiki Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti Vs Gulla Alias Gulab Chand S/O Shri Birda

Kavita W/O Shri Anoop Pawar Vs Ramesh Chand S/O Shri Ramprakash

Hansraj Gurjar S/O Shri Karan Singh Vs Kotak Mahendra Bank Limited

M/S Space 4 Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd, Vs District Collector (Sikar)

M/S Hari Prakash Sharma Vs Union of India

M/S Dr. B. Lal Clinical Laboratory Private Limited Vs M/S Khaitan Medical and Diagnostic Centre