[2025:RJ-JP:49554]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Arbitration Application No. 84/2024 M/s Rajendra Prasad Bansal, Railway Contractor, Having His Office At New Sabji Mandi, Bayana, Distt. Bharatpur, Rajasthan- 321401 Through Its Partner And Authorized Signatory Sh.

Rajendra Prasad Bansal.

----Applicant Versus

1. Union Of India, Through General Manager, West Central Railway, WCR, Head Quarter, South Civil Lines, Jabalpur, Madya Pradesh-482001.

2. Divisional Railway Manager (WA), West Central Railway, Kota-324002 Rajasthan.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jatin Agarwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Chandra Shekhar Sinha with Mr. Mayank Kamwar Mr. Dev Yadav Ms. Nandini Chaturvedi on behalf of Mr. Prashant Chaturvedi HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA

Order

05/12/2025

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

2. Learned counsel for the applicant draws the attention of this Court to Clause 64 of the Arbitration Agreement, which is reproduced as under: -

“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. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that he issued a notice for appointment of an Arbitrator on 06.04.2022; however, no Arbitrator was appointed. He therefore prays that an Arbitrator may be appointed.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the final payment of the final bill was made to the applicant on 30.03.2021, and therefore, since the present application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, has been filed in July 2024, it is barred by limitation of three years and liable to be dismissed.

5. Heard both the parties.

6. This Court finds from the pleadings in the application that the price variation amount was paid to the applicant by the respondents on 13.08.2021. Therefore, the present application for appointment of an Arbitrator, having been filed within three years from the said date of payment, is within the period of limitation. Whether the claims are within limitation or not will be decided by the learned Arbitrator when the claims are filed by the claimants and opposed by the respondents.

7. Considering the above, this arbitration application is allowed and this Court deems it appropriate to appoint a Sole Arbitrator. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kailash Chandra Mishra (Retd.), resident of 170/17 Haldi Ghati Marg, Opp. Mewar Apartments Pratap Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.) is appointed as the Sole Arbitrator to decide the dispute between the parties.

8. 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.

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

10. Copy of this order be sent to the appointed Arbitrator.

(BIPIN GUPTA),J PARSHANT /90 Powerd by TCPDF (w.tcpdf.org)