Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
M/S Sharma Construction Company vs General Manager, North Western Railway … on 24 April, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:17545]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Arbitration Application No. 10/2024
M/s Sharma Construction Company, Through Its Proprietors,
Village And Post Sabalpura, District Sikar, Rajasthan-332001.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. General Manager, North Western Railway, Jawahar Cirlce,
Jaipur.
2. Divisional Rail Manager, North Western Railway, Jaipur.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Arbitration Application No. 11/2024
M/s Sharma Construction Company, Through Its Proprietors,
Village And Post Sawalpura, District Sikar, Rajasthan-332001.
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. General Manager, North Western Railway, Jawahar Circle,
Jaipur.
2. Divisional Rail Manager, North Western Railway, Jaipur.
—-Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dharmendra Jain
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Heemanshu Meena
HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
Order
24/04/2026
1. The petitioner(s) has invoked Clause 64 of the Agreement
seeking appointment of an Arbitrator in relation to the dispute
which has arisen between the parties, for which
notice/representation dated 20.07.2022 was also served on the
respondents. The respondents in reply have raised certain issues
(Uploaded on 29/04/2026 at 07:58:03 AM)
(Downloaded on 30/04/2026 at 11:06:44 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:17545] (2 of 3) [ARBAP-10/2024]
relating to the dispute, which reflect that the dispute is actually
arisen between the parties.
2. This Court in D.B. Civil Reference No.1/2024 titled M/s
Devender Singh Contractor vs. Union of India, decided on
14.11.2025, has held as under:
“2. It is not in dispute between the parties that there exist an
arbitration clause. The arbitration clause is an independent
clause which has to be read independently of the other
clauses of the Arbitrator and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short
‘the Act’) and unless there is an embargo in the said
arbitration clause merely because in some other clauses of
the agreement, certain parts are excluded would not create
embargo for appointment of arbitrator. In, Interplay between
Arbitration Agreements (2024) 6 SCC 1, the Supreme Court
held that if the arbitration clause exist then the question of
arbitrability or non-arbitrability will have to be examined by
the concerned arbitrator who is to be appointed by the Court
in terms of Section 11(6) of the Act. Leaving it open to the
concerned arbitrator to exercise his powers in terms of
Section16 of the Act.”
3. This Court notices that a dispute has arisen between the
parties and there is an arbitration clause, which provides for
adjudication. Owing to the said event having arisen, this Court
deems it appropriate to appoint Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satish Kumar
Sharma (Retd.), R/o-1, Bhagwan Path, Kings Road, Rail Nagar,
Jaipur, as Sole Arbitrator.
4. The sole Arbitrator shall be paid fee in accordance with the
Fourth Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for
short ‘the Act’), as amended. The fee of the Arbitrator will be
equally borne by both the parties.
5. The Arbitrator is requested to complete the proceedings as
per time limit specified under Section 29A of the Act.
(Uploaded on 29/04/2026 at 07:58:03 AM)
(Downloaded on 30/04/2026 at 11:06:44 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:17545] (3 of 3) [ARBAP-10/2024]
6. The arbitration applications are allowed accordingly.
7. Copy of this order be sent to the appointed Arbitrator.
8. A copy of this order be placed in the connected file.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ
SANJAY KUMAWAT/RAJAT/33-34
(Uploaded on 29/04/2026 at 07:58:03 AM)
(Downloaded on 30/04/2026 at 11:06:44 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)