[2026:RJ-JD:21457]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Arbitration Application No. 21/2025 D.b. - K.h. Joint Venture, (A Joint Venture Of M/s D.b. Infratech And M/s K.h. Construction) Through Its Representative Mr. Bhom Singh, S/o Hameer Singh, Aged About 31 Years, R/o 85 , Vaishanav Nagar -Ii, Jodhpur ----Petitioner Versus

1. Rajasthan State Road Development And Construction Corporation, Through Managing Director Jaipur.

2. Project Director, R. S.r.d.c. Ltd. Unit Udaipur 74- Ashok Nagar Road No. 3 , Udaipur.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mudit Nagpal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ankur Mathur HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT

Order

23/03/2026

1. The present application has been filed under Section 11(6)

of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of an independent arbitrator for adjudication of disputes alleged to have arisen between the parties in relation to a works contract.

2. The brief facts, necessary for disposal of the present application, are that the respondent-General manager, R.S.R.D.C issued a Notice Inviting Tender bearing No. 319/2023-24 dated 02.08.2023 for construction of academic block at the Medical College, Rajsamand. Pursuant thereto, the applicant participated in the bidding process and was issued a Letter of Acceptance dated 04.10.2023, followed by a work order dated 05.10.2023.

3. It is the case of the applicant that after commencement of work, certain hindrances arose, due to, non-supply of drawings by the respondent, compelling the applicant to raise communications including letter dated 18.10.2023. Subsequently, the applicant invoked Clause 24 of the agreement by way of representation dated 01.10.2024 seeking resolution of disputes. It is further contended that despite repeated requests, no effective decision was taken and no arbitrator was appointed, leading to filing of the present application.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant while relying upon the following judgements has stated that in these cases the Courts have interpreted the said clause 24 (different clause no. in respective cases) as the clause of arbitration:

• M/s Compucon Software Ltd. vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd; S.B. Arb. App. No.

40/2022 at Jaipur • M/s Chhagni Ram Gehlot vs. The Jodhpur Development Authority & Anr.; S.B. Arb. App.

No. 9/2020 • Chhagni Ram Gehlot vs. State of Rajasthan;

S.B. Civil Misc. Arb. App. No. 146/2011 • Chetan Construction Co. vs. State & Ors.; RLW

2005(2) Raj. 996

5. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that disputes having arisen between the parties and the respondent having failed to act, therefore, the applicant has no other option but to approach this Court under Section

11(6) of the Act of 1996 to appoint an independent arbitrator.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the application and submits that in view of Clause 25 of the agreement, arbitration is expressly excluded, and therefore, the present application is not maintainable. It is further submitted that the agreement provides only for a dispute redressal mechanism under Clause 24 and thereafter the parties are at liberty to seek appropriate remedies before the competent civil court.

7. In support of his contention, reliance has been placed upon the judgment passed by Division bench of this Court at Jaipur in the case of M/s Suri Constructions vs. Rajasthan Housing Board & Ors; D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 796/2019, wherein a similar clause was held not to constitute an arbitration agreement.

8. In response, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the said judgment no longer holds the field in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Eminent Colonizers Pvt. Ltd vs. Rajasthan Housing Board & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 753 of 2026, vide which a similar judgement of the High Court was overturned and the clause 23 of that agreement was construed as an arbitration clause, hence, in the light of the principle laid down, the clause 24 of the present