##PAGE1##

[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

(Uploaded on 06/05/2026 at 02:31:25 PM)

(Downloaded on 07/05/2026 at 12:04:54 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:21457] (2 of 15) [ARBAP-21/2025]

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

(Uploaded on 06/05/2026 at 02:31:25 PM)

(Downloaded on 07/05/2026 at 12:04:54 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:21457] (3 of 15) [ARBAP-21/2025]

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 Boar