[2025:RJ-JP:18080-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4970/2019 1. Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Rajasthan, Government, Jaipur 2. Executive Engineer, Narbada Kenal Division-1, Sanchore, Rajasthan ----Appellants Versus 1. M/s Goodwill Advance Construction Company, through Proprietor Harbansh Sethi S/o Late Sunderdas Sethi, R/o 97 Deshhera Scheme, Kota, Rajasthan. 2. Empowered Standing Committee through Chairman/Principal Secretary Water Resources, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. B.S. Chhaba, AAG with Mr. Avinash Choudhary For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dinesh Yadav with Mr. Ankit Kumar HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order 29/04/2025 1. This appeal filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘1996 Act’) against the order dated 22.05.2019 passed by the Commercial Court allowing the application u/s 34 of 1996 Act. 2. The relevant facts are that on 01.03.2002 the appellant awarded contract to the respondent for earth work and cement concrete lining. The contract was for the period i.e. from 01.03.2002 to 31.08.2004. Clause 23 of the terms and conditions [2025:RJ-JP:18080-DB] (2 of 2) [CMA-4970/2019] of the contract provided for settlement of the disputes by Empowered Standing Committee (for short ‘Committee’). The constitution of the Committee was stipulated in the clause. The respondent filed claims before the Committee. Out of ten claims made, two claims were accepted by the Committee. After decision of the Committee, the petitioner filed an application for appointment of arbitrator i.e. S.B. Civil Arbitration Application No.13/2010. The application was not pressed seeking liberty to challenge the decision of the Committee u/s 34 of the 1996 Act. The application filed by the respondent u/s 34 of the 1996 Act was accepted. Hence, the present appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the parties after arguing at some length are not disputing the fact that decision of the Committee was not an award passed under the 1996 Act and application u/s 34 of the 1996 Act was not maintainable. 4. At this stage, considering the undisputed fact that one of the member of the Committee was an interested person in the claim made, learned counsel for the parties on instructions have no objection if the matter is remitted back to the Committee to decide the claim of the respondent afresh. 5. In view of the statement given by the counsel for the parties, the matter is remitted back to the Committee to decide the claim afresh. The impugned order dated 22.05.2019 passed u/s 34 of the 1996 Act is set aside. The appeal is allowed. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J Simple Kumawat /59