The High Court's jurisdiction under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is limited to confirming the existence of an arbitration agreement, while issues of claims and limitations are to be resolved by the appointed Arbitrator.

ORDER :

SUDESH BANSAL, J.

1. Heard counsel for both parties and perused the pleadings so also documents placed on record by the respective parties.

2. Instant arbitration application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the A&C Act") has been filed by the applicant for appointment of an Arbitrator in terms of Clause (xi) and (xviii) of the agreement dated 11.01.2018 to resolve the dispute arisen between parties out of such agreement. The execution of agreement dated 11.01.2018 between the parties is an undisputed fact and the arbitration agreement contended therein reads as under:-

"That in case of any dispute arises under this work order the same shall be referred to a panel of three arbitrators. One arbitrator shall be appointed by each party and the both these arbitrators would appoint the third arbitrator. The decision of the panel of arbitrators shall be final and binding on both the parties to this work order. The arbitrators shall deliver their decision within a period of three months from the date of their appointment. The provisions of the arbitration and conciliation act, 1996 as amended from time to time shall apply on the proceedings of the arbitration. The venue of the arbitration shall be mutually decided place at Jaipur and under the Jurisdiction of the courts at Jaipur."

3. It is not in dispute between parties that prior to entering into the agreement dated 11.01.2018 between the applicant-Company and respondent-Firm, a contract was awarded in favour of respondent No.1-Firm, which is a Government approved Contractor Firm, by the Rajasthan Urban Infrastructure Development Project 'RUIDP' to execute and complete the assigned work and in turn, respondent No.1-Firm entered into a sub contract and agreement with the applicant-Company to carry out such assigned contract for which a separate agreement between both parties was entered into on 11.01.2018. The nature and scope of work assigned by the RUIDP to respondent No.1, which was agreed to be carried out by the applicant under the agreement dated 11.01.2018, is as under:-

"Scope of work:
That M/s 4TH DIMENSION INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED shall execute the complete work i.e. Providing laying jointing, testing and commissioning of left over sewer line network including completion of missing gaps in laid sewer network with its commissioning including laying, joining, testing, commissioning of house sewer connection, ancillary items at 10 MLD Waste Stabilization Ponds process with operation & maintenance 5 years in Jaisalmer (Packaged No. RUSDIP/JSL/WW/10) as per the contract agreement between 'Divija Construction' and 'RUIDP' for the above works on back to back basis in all respects both technically and commercially."

4. The applicant-Company has come up with a case that the assigned contract was completed by the applicant-Company by or before 14.08.2018 in terms of the agreement dated 11.01.2018, yet the respondents forfeited the performance security amount of Rs.17 lacs deposited by the applicant-Company in furtherance to agreement dated 11.01.2018 and further other dues of Rs.12,05,003/- and Rs.1,50,000/- are also outstanding against the respondents. Thus, applicant-Company claims Rs.30,55,003.23/- against the respondents.

5. It has been alleged by the applicant-Company that initially a Legal Notice dated 28.07.2023 was served upon the respondents, demanding the outstanding amount, but same was denied by the respondents under Reply Notice dated 15.09.2023, hence, in order to settle