IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA REQUEST CASE No.12 of 2025 ======================================================

M/s OSCORP Industries Private Limited ... ... Petitioner/s Versus Union of India ... ... Respondent/s ======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Suraj Kumar Tiwari, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr.Alok Kumar, CGC ======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ORAL ORDER

3 13-02-2026 The Request Case has been filed under Section 11(5)

& (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with a prayer for appointment of a person as an Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute and differences between the parties arising out of arbitration agreement contained in Clause-64 of the General Conditions of the Contract, 2020 which forms part of the agreement dated 22.12.2021 annexed as Annexure-P/1 to this petition.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Clause-64(1)(i) of the agreement, which reads as follows:-

“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 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 63.1 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.”

3. He further submits that demand of arbitration was made on 05.04.2023 by issuing a letter to the respondents, however, since no fruitful result came out, the petitioner approached High Court of Calcutta in AP/425/2023 (M/s. Oscorp Industries Private Ltd. Vs. Union of India) which was disposed of on 09.12.2023 and it was held that since Section 11(6) of the 1996 Act confers the power to appoint arbitrator/s only on the Hon’ble Supreme Court or the High Court, as the case may be, this Court would be the appropriate High Court where the petitioner would have to go for the prayer for appointment of an Arbitrator. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since in view of the observation made by the High Court of Calcutta, he has filed this petition, the necessary relief may be granted to him.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has referred to paragraph no. 56 of the petition and pointed out that petitioner has challenged the order dated 09.12.2023 passed by the High Court of Calcutta in AP/425/2023 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Diary No. 612242024 of 2024 has been registered and it is sub judice.

5. When this Court wanted to know the status of such case, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he will not pursue the case filed in the Hon’ble Supreme Court and necessary order may be passed by this Court for appointment of an Arbitrator.

6. Let the petitioner take appropriate steps before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and produce the relevant documents on the next date of hearing for passing necessary order.

7. Put up this matter on 13.03.2026.

(Sangam Kumar Sahoo, CJ)

ranjan/-

U