[2025:RJ-JP:45889-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Reference No. 1/2024 M/s Devender Singh Contractor having its Office at H.No. 7, Pratap Nagar, Saket Colony, Rajagarh Road, Hissar Haryana through its Proprietor Sh. Devender Singh. ----Petitioner Versus Union of India through General Manager, North Western Railway, Near Jawahar Circle, Jaipur. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jatin Agarwal with Ms. Anit Goyal Mr. Naman Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rahul Kamwar with Mr. Shubham Rohila Mr. Lakshya Sharma Mr. Vaibhav Nirmal Mr. Bharat Todi HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU Order 14/11/2025 1. The reference made to this Court by the learned Single Judge dated 01.12.2023 is no more res-integra in view of the fact that the judgments which have deferred from the view taken by a co-ordinate Bench in M/s Rama Kishan Ashok Kumar (JV) vs. Union of India & Anr. and M/s Sanjeev Brothers vs. Union of India namely M/s Vashisth Construction Company vs. General Manager, Northern Western Railway came up before the Hon'ble Supreme Court arising out of SLP (C)No.2532 of 2023. The Court has held as under:- [2025:RJ-JP:45889-DB] (2 of 3) [CREF-1/2024] “Leave granted. In view of the judgment of this Court in "In Re: Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 and the Indian Stamp Act 189 and connected matter(s), the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. On applying the prima facie test, we are of the opinion that the arbitration agreement 'exists'. The question of arbitrability or non-arbitrability of the dispute, will be decided by the Arbitrator. All contentions are left open. Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi, Former Judge of this Court, is appointed to act as the Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes inter se the parties. The learned Arbitrator will be entitled to fee in accordance with schedule IV of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Recording the aforesaid, the impugned judgment is set aside and the appeal is allowed. Pending application(s), is any, shall stand disposed of.” 2. It is not in dispute between the parties that there exist an arbitration clause. The arbitration clause is an independent clause which has to be read independently of the other clauses of the Arbitrator and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the Act’) and unless there is an embargo in the said arbitration clause merely because in some other clauses of the agreement, certain parts are excluded would not create embargo for appointment of arbitrator. In, Interplay between Arbitration Agreements (2024) 6 SCC 1, the Supreme Court held that if the arbitration clause exist [2025:RJ-JP:45889-DB] (3 of 3) [CREF-1/2024] then the question of arbitrability or non-arbitrability will have to be examined by the concerned arbitrator who is to be appointed by the Court in terms of Section 11(6) of the Act. Leaving it open to the concerned arbitrator to exercise his powers in terms of Section 16 of the Act. 3. We dispose of this reference and appoint Shri Alok Sharma to act as an arbitrator and decide the dispute as well as the aforesaid aspects. The terms of the Manual of Arbitral laid down by this Court shall be considered by the learned Arbitrator. 4. The reference stands disposed of. 5. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly. (BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ Gaurav/Simple/38