2025:JHHC:16242 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Arbitration Application No. 11 of 2024 M/S. Nand Lal & Sons, A partnership firm having its office & unit at A- 1/71, Safdarjang, Enclave, New Delhi-110029, through one of its Partner Sri Dinesh Kumar Juneja, son of Late Nand Lal Juneja, aged about 63 years, resident of village: Dumardaga, P.O.: Sugnu & P.S.: Sadar, District: Ranchi ( Jharkhand) .. ... Petitioner Versus 1. Military Engineer Services, through its Engineer-in-Chief, having its office at Kashmir House, Rajaji Marg, P.O.: Nirman Bhawan & P.S.: Teen Murti, District: New Delhi-110011. 2. The Chief Engineer, Military Engineer Services, having its office at Jabalpur Zone, Ridge Road, Jabalpur Cantt, P.O. & P.S.: Cantonment, District: Jabalpur-482001 ( Madhya Pradesh). 3. Commander Works Engineer, having its office at Dipatoli Cantt, P.O.: Hotwar & P.S.: Sadar, District: Ranchi-835217 ( Jharkhand) 4. The Garrison Engineer, Military Engineer Services, having its office at Mes Dipatol Mil Stn., P.O.: Hotwar & P.S.: Sadar, District: Ranchi-835217 ( Jharkhand) …… ... Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE --------- For the Appellant: Mr. Nitin Pasari, Advocate Mr. Shubham Choudhary, Advocate Mr. Gaurav Kaushalesh, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate --------- 07/Dated: 20.06.2025 1. Heard both sides. 2. This arbitration application is filed under section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an Arbitrator to decide the disputes between the parties arising out of work order dt. 14.01.2016. 3. The arbitration clause between the parties is contained at page 72 of the application papers read with Clause 70 of the General Conditions of Contract (Page-216). 4. According to the petitioner the allotted work as per the tender issued by the respondent was completed by the petitioner on 30.04.2018 but payment of running bills were not released in timely fashion. Petitioner contends that certain correspondences were exchanged with the respondents and certain payment was made on 2025:JHHC:16242 26.10.2021 to the petitioner which was accepted under protest by the petitioner. 5. Petitioner contends that the proposal for appointment of arbitrator was made through a letter dt.10.06.2022 and 27.06.2022 and on 30.09.2022, it received a letter from the respondents asking the petitioner to waive the conditions stipulated in sub section (5) of section 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 so that the Engineer-in-Chief of the respondent can be appointed as an arbitrator though he is a serving officer. 6. According to the petitioner, he agreed for the said terms and waived these conditions, but even then the respondent did not appoint an arbitrator in spite of letters dt. 06.06.2023 and 04.07.2023 issued by the petitioner to the department. 7. Ultimately on 17.7.2023 the respondent wrote a letter to the petitioner stating that there is a lapse of more than five years since the project was completed and the claim of the petitioner is time barred. 8. Petitioner disputes the said contention by saying that on 16.08.2023 he wrote to the department saying that the last payment made by the department was on 26.10.2021 and, therefore, for the balance payment the claim is not time barred. Thereafter petitioner filed this application. 9. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit specifically raising the contention about bar of limitation. The contention of the counsel for the respondent that since the work was completed in April, 2018 itself, the application filed by the petitioner for appointment of arbitrator cannot be entertained at this belated time. 10. Under sub section 6(A) of section 12 of the of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 which is still in force, this Court, while adjudicating an application under section 11(6) of the Act, has to confine itself to the examination of the existence of the arbitration agreement only. Therefore, I am not entering into the dispute regarding bar of limitation which is a mixed question of law and fact, which requires to be gone into in the arbitration proceedings by the arbitrator who will be appointed under this order. 11. Since, admittedly, there is an arbitration clause which is admitted by both parties, and since notice invoking the arbitration clause has already been issued by the applicant, and since the 2025:JHHC:16242 dispute raised by the respondent cannot be gone into in this application in view of clause 11(6)(A) of the Act, Sri. Chandra Prakash Asthana, retired Principal District & Sessions Judge of this Court residing at 3A, Suryoday Apartment Near D.A.V. School, Junior Wing, P.O. Hehal, P.S. Sukhdeonagar, District Ranchi, PIN-834005, is hereby appointed as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties. 12. All contentions available to the parties are left open. 13. Learned Arbitrator would be free to lay down the fees and other expenses towards conduct of the arbitration proceedings, however keeping into account the ceiling prescribed under Schedule IV of the Act of 1996 as amended. 14. Learned Arbitrator would endeavor to conclude the proceedings expeditiously, also taking into regard the mandate of the Legislature under Section 29-A of the Act of 1996. 15. Accordingly, this application is allowed. 16. The Registry is directed to intimate the arbitrator so appointed to take up the arbitration proceeding and provide photocopy of the entire pleadings along with copy of the entire order sheet to the learned Arbitrator. 17. Urgent Certified Copies as per Rules. (M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.) Sharda/MM/ Cp.02