[2025:RJ-JP:49508] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Arbitration Application No. 56/2022 Hi-Tech Organization, E-30, Road No. 2, Indraprastha Industrial Area, Kota 324005, A Registered Partnership Firm, Through Its Authorized Signatory And On E Of The Partner Jitendra Kumar Goyal S/o Shri D.p. Goyal, E-30, Road No. 2, Indraprastha Industrial Area, Kota-324005. ----Applicant Versus 1. Union Of India, Through General Manager North Western Railway, Near Jawahar Circle, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.) 302017. 2. Deputy Chief Engineer/bridge Line-Ii, North Western Railway, Near Jawahar Circle, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.) 302017. ----Respondents For Applicant(s) : Mr. Shailendra Prakash Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjay Mishra HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA Order 05/12/2025 1. Applicant has filed this arbitration application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for appointment of Arbitrator. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that LOI was issued on 17.06.2021, pertaining to the work for which NIT was issued by the respondents. It was specifically agreed by the respondents in the LOI that until any contract agreement is signed between both the parties, letter of acceptance will bind the parties and the same will serve as an operative document between the [2025:RJ-JP:49508] (2 of 3) [ARBAP-56/2022] two parties. He further draws attention of this Court towards the arbitration agreement available in the contract. 3. As per the contract, there is an arbitration clause between the parties which is as under:- “37.3 DEMAND FOR ARBITRATION Demand for arbitration shall be govern and deal as per clause No.64 Part-II of GCC July-2020, with up to date correction slip. Subject to the provisions of the aforesaid Arbitration & Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 and the rules thereunder and any statutory modifications thereof shall apply to the arbitration proceedings under this clause.” 4. Learned counsel for the applicant also submits that, while denying the appointment of Arbitrator vide letter dated 14.03.2022, the respondents have placed reliance on Clause 62 of the GCC, to justify their stance, asserting that such matters fall within the category of exceptions. He further prayed that the Arbitrator may be appointed. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that only LOI was issued in favour of the applicant and there was no contract entered between the parties. However, he could not refute the factum of denial of appointment of Arbitrator on account of Clause 62, thereby categorizing the matter as an excepted one. 6. Heard both the parties. 7. Since the respondent vide their letter dated 14.03.2022, have denied the appointment of Arbitrator applying Clause 62 of GCC on the ground of excepted matters. This Court finds that Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in D.B. Civil Reference No.1/2024, have held that the question of arbitrability or non arbitrability will have to be examined by the concerned Arbitrator, [2025:RJ-JP:49508] (3 of 3) [ARBAP-56/2022] who is to be appointed by the Court in terms of Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. 8. In view of the judgment dated 14.11.2025, passed by the Division Bench, in D.B. Civil Reference No.1/2024, this Court deems it appropriate to appoint Smt. Kamal Dutta (Retd. District Judge) R/o D-88, Ladalipath, Chomu House, C-Scheme, Jaipur as sole Arbitrator. 9. The arbitrator shall be paid fee in accordance with the Fourth Schedule of the Act, as amended. The fee of the arbitrator will be equally borne by both the parties. 10. The Arbitrator is requested to complete the proceedings as per time limit specified under Section 29A of the Act. 11. With the above observations, the present Arbitration Application stands disposed of. 12. All pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. 13. Copy of this order be sent to the appointed Arbitrator. (BIPIN GUPTA),J MAHIMA/81