[2025:RJ-JP:19523] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Arbitration Application No.3/2024 M/s R.K. Infra (JV), 406-407, Pink Tower, Behind Sahara Chambers, Tonk Road, Jaipur - 302015. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through General Manager, North Western Railway, NWR Headquarter, Near Jawahar Circle, Jagatpura Road, Jaipur. 2. The Deputy Chief Engineer, (Construction-II), North Western Railway, Dausa, District Dausa. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Devi Dutt Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Alok Garg JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 08/05/2025 1. The instant arbitration application has been filed with the following prayer:- “(I) An independent Arbitral Tribunal may please be constituted and independent arbitrator may please be appointed to adjudicate all the disputes arises in between the claimant and the respondents, under the agreement. Any Hon’ble High Court retired Justice or Distt. Judge (Retd.) at Jaipur may please be appointed as Arbitrator, as no technical matter is involved. (II) The cost of the petition may be awarded to the Applicant, (III) To pass such other order, or give relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in the [2025:RJ-JP:19523] (2 of 3) [ARBAP-3/2024] facts and circumstances of the case, in favour of the claimant.” 2. By way of filing this arbitration application, the applicant is seeking directions for appointment of an independent arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that on earlier occasion, Mr. A.K. Gupta, was appointed as sole arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties. Learned counsel submits that the sole arbitrator vide its order dated 14.06.2023 has not resolved all the claims submitted before the Arbitral Tribunal and the claim was confined to Rs.10 lacs. Learned counsel submits that as per the provisions contained under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1996”) whenever a matter is referred to the Arbitrator, he is suppose to decide and resolve all the claims between the parties. Learned counsel submits that no specific reference is required to be given, hence under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the arguments raised by learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the order dated 14.06.2023 passed by the Sole Arbitrator has been challenged by the applicant by way of filing Objection Application under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 before the Commercial Court No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan II wherein a similar prayer has been made, hence, under these circumstances, the instant arbitration application is not maintainable and is liable to be rejected on this count alone. [2025:RJ-JP:19523] (3 of 3) [ARBAP-3/2024] 5. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 6. Perusal of the record as well as the Objection Application submitted by the petitioner under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 before the Commercial Court indicates that similar prayer has been made before the court concerned for referring the matter again to the Arbitrator for settlement of all the disputes between the parties. The Objection Application submitted by the applicant is still pending for adjudication before the Commercial Court, hence, under these circumstances, the successive arbitration application with regard to the same prayer is not maintainable before this Court. 7. Accordingly, the arbitration application stands rejected. 8. However, the Commercial Court is expected to decide the Objection Application submitted by the applicant strictly in accordance with law. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/196