Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:37306 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Arb. Application No. 43 of 2025 SMS Paryavaran Ltd, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at SH-2, Vardhman Grand Plaza, Plot 7, Mangalam Place, Sector-3, Rohini, P.O. & P.S. Rohini, District New Delhi through its authorized signatory Suresh Digamber Harne, son of Digamber Harne, aged about 70 years, resident of Enclave Road No. 44, Near Ashiyana Road, Pitampura, Saraswati Vihar S.O. North West Delhi P.O. & P.S. Pitampura, District New Delhi. ... Petitioner Versus 1. State of Jharkhand through Secretary, Drinking Water and Sanitation, having its registered office at Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi. 2. Engineer- in- Chief, Drinking Water & Sanitation Department having its registered office at Nepal House, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi. 3. Superintending Engineer, Drinking Water and sanitation, having its registered office at Hazaribagh, P.O., P.S. and District Hazaribagh. 4. Executive Engineer, Drinking Water & Sanitation Division having its registered office at Chatra, P.O., P.S. and District Chatra. ... Respondents WITH Arb. Application No. 36 of 2025 SMS Paryavaran Ltd, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at SH-2, Vardhman Grand Plaza, Plot 7, Mangalam Place, Sector-3, Rohini, P.O. & P.S. Rohini, District New Delhi through its authorized signatory Suresh Digamber Harne, son of Digamber Harne, aged about 70 years, resident of Enclave Road No. 44, Near Ashiyana Road, Pitampura, Saraswati Vihar S.O. North West Delhi P.O. & P.S. Pitampura, District New Delhi. ... Petitioner Versus 1. State of Jharkhand through Secretary, Drinking Water and Sanitation, having its registered office at Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi. 2. Engineer- in- Chief, Drinking Water & Sanitation Department having its registered office at Nepal House, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi. 3. Superintending Engineer, Drinking Water and sanitation, having its registered office at Medininagar, P.O., P.S. and District Medininagar. 4. Executive Engineer, Drinking Water & Sanitation Division having its registered office at Medininagar, P.O., P.S. and District Medininagar. Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:37306 ... Respondents WITH Arb. Application No. 37 of 2025 SMS Paryavaran Ltd, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at SH-2, Vardhman Grand Plaza, Plot 7, Mangalam Place, Sector-3, Rohini, P.O. & P.S. Rohini, District New Delhi through its authorized signatory Suresh Digamber Harne, son of Digamber Harne, aged about 70 years, resident of Enclave Road No. 44, Near Ashiyana Road, Pitampura, Saraswati Vihar S.O. North West Delhi P.O. & P.S. Pitampura, District New Delhi. ... Petitioner Versus 1. State of Jharkhand through Secretary, Drinking Water and Sanitation, having its registered office at Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi. 2. Engineer- in- Chief, Drinking Water & Sanitation Department having its registered office at Nepal House, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi. 3. Superintending Engineer, Drinking Water and sanitation, having its registered office at Medininagar, P.O., P.S. and District Medininagar. 4. Executive Engineer, Drinking Water & Sanitation Division having its registered office at Medininagar, P.O., P.S. and District Medininagar. ... Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE --------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Rohitashya Roy, Advocate Mr. Vibhor Mayank, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Sahbaj Akhtar, A.C. to A.A.G.-III Mrs. Sweta Shukla, A.C. to A.A.G.-II Mr. Piyush Chitresh, A.C. to A.G. --------- 10/Dated: 11.12.2025 1. The instant applications have been filed for appointment of Arbitrator. 2. Evidently, the clauses whereby the matter could be referred to the Adjudicator/Arbitrator synonymous with Dispute Review Expert have been omitted in the contracts and, therefore, the matter cannot be referred to the Arbitrator as has already been held by this Court in Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:37306 a batch of petitions lead being Arbitration Application No. 39 of 2023 titled SMS Paryavaran Ltd Vs. State of Jharkhand and Others. It shall be apt to reproduce the relevant observations as contained in paragraphs 10 to 20 of the judgment which read as under:- “10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material placed on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Clause 1.1 of the Conditions of Contract which reads as under: “1.1. Terms which are defined in the Contract data are not also defined in the Conditions of Contract but keep their defined meanings. Capital initials are used to identify defined terms. The Adjudicator/ Arbitrator synonymous with (Dispute Review Expert) is the person appointed jointly by the employer and the contractor to resolve disputes in the first instance, as provided for in clause 24 and 25. It is to be conducted under the rules of Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) any statutory modifications or re-enactment thereof.” 11. It would be noticed that as regards Clauses 24 and 25, the same have been mentioned as “deleted”. 12. On 25.04.2025, the Court directed the petitioner to produce Clauses 24 and 25 in the Conditions of Contract which are omitted in the subject contract. In compliance with the aforesaid directions, a supplementary affidavit has been filed Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:37306 and placed on record Clauses 24 and 25 of the Conditions of Contract that had been omitted and the same read as under: “24. Disputes 24.1 If the Contractor believes that a decision taken by the Engineer was either outside the authority given to the Engineer by the Contract or that the decision was wrongly taken, the decision shall be referred to the Adjudicator within 14 days of the notification of the Engineer's decision. 25. Procedure for Disputes 25.1 The Adjudicator shall give a decision in writing within 28 days of receipt of a notification of a dispute. 25.2 The Adjudicator shall be paid daily at the rate specified in the Contract Data together with reimbursable expenses of the types specified in the Contract Data and the cost shall be divided equally between the Employer and the Contractor, whatever decision is reached by the Adjudicator. Either party may refer a decision of the Adjudicator to an Arbitrator within 28 days of the Adjudicator's written decision. If neither party refers the dispute to arbitration within the above 28 days, the Adjudicator's decision will be final and binding. Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:37306 25.3 The arbitration shall be conducted in accordance with the arbitration procedure stated in the Special Conditions of Contract.” 13. It is vehemently argued by Mr. Rohitashya Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner that in terms of Clause 1.1, it is evidently clear that the arbitration clause still exists on the document and Clauses 24 and 25 that have been omitted only provided for the procedure for conducting the arbitration. I, however, find no merit in this contention as it would be evidently clear from the perusal of the omitted Clause-24.1 that if the Contractor i.e. the petitioner believed that a decision taken by the Engineer was either outside the authority given to the Engineer by the Contract or the decision was wrongly taken, then the decision was to be referred to the Adjudicator within 14 days of the notification of the Engineer's decision. Thus, this is not a procedure, rather a cause of action for the petitioner to invoke the arbitral proceedings. 14. Thereafter, the procedure of dispute has been settled in Clause 25 which stands omitted. 15. As regards Clause- 1.1, it has been clearly envisaged therein that the Adjudicator/Arbitrator synonymous with (Dispute Review Expert) is the person appointed jointly by the employer and the contractor to resolve the disputes in the first instance that have been provided in Clause 24 and 25. Clauses 24 and 25 have been deleted and obviously, therefore, there is no question of referring the so-called dispute to the Arbitrator. Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:37306 16. In other words, it would only be the dispute as covered by the Clauses 24 and 25 that could have been referred to the Adjudicator/Arbitrator synonymous with (Dispute Review Expert). 17. No doubt, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, a contract must be interpreted in a manner so as to give effect to the agreement rather than invalidated it. However, the petitioner herein is erroneous in assuming the existence of an arbitration agreement where the parties have consciously adopted standard form of contract, albeit, with the deletion of the arbitration clause. Undoubtedly, this is a case of inartistic drafting. However, it is not a case of an inartistic drafting of an arbitration clause; rather it is a case of deletion of an arbitration clause in an unartistic manner. Clauses 24 and 25 have been consciously deleted and the contract with the petitioner was entered into after such deletion and hence, the requirement of essential ingredient of an arbitration agreement to have the dispute resolved by an Arbitrator who could decide the dispute, is absent. 18. Moreover, it is judicially settled that the terms of contract must be strictly construed. Reference in this regard can be made from the decision of Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. M/s Narbheram Power and Steel (P) Limited, reported in (2018) 6 SCC 534. 19. Furthermore, when the respondents-State Government has consciously and intentionally deleted the provision for Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:37306 arbitration from its contract, it would be a travesty of justice to read another clause in the contract to conclude that there is a provision for arbitration. 20. For the reasons stated above, this Court cannot accept that an arbitration clause exists between the parties. The Arbitration Applications are, accordingly, dismissed. Pending Application, if any, stands disposed of.” 3. In view of the aforesaid discussion and for the reasons stated above, this Court cannot accept that an arbitration clause exists between the parties. The Arbitration Applications are accordingly dismissed. 4. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J.) December 11, 2025 N.A.F.R. Manoj /Cp.2 Uploaded on 14.12.2025