2025:JHHC:26514 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Arbitration Application No. 21 of 2025 Dinesh Kumar Gupta, Aged about 67 years, Son of Late Mani Lal Gupta, Resident of Gudri Bazar, Ward No.21, P.O. Samastipur, P.S. Samastipur, District Samastipur, Bihar-848101. ... Petitioner Versus Rajeev Ranjan, Son of Kailash Parida, Resident of 404 Sandhu Apartment, Matrica Ashram Street, Near Women’s Hostel, P.O. Lalpur, P.S. Lalpur, District Ranchi. ... Respondent --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE --------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Vikas Pandey, Advocate For the Respondent: Mr. Sidhartha Roy, Advocate Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate --------- Reserved on: 29.08.2025 Pronounced on: 01/09/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this arbitration application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an independent Arbitrator for adjudication of the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent. Case of the petitioner 2. It is averred that the petitioner and the respondent, who is proprietor of Rajdhani Home, entered into an agreement dated 18.02.2023 for purchase of a land on Ranchi-Hazaribagh Road. In response to the said agreement, the respondent agreed to sell 08 decimals of land belonging to one Upendra Kumar, son of Sri Banbari Pandey, located beside Ranchi-Hazaribagh Road, in Mouza Humbai, Thana Sadar, Thana No.167, Khata No.8, Plot No.299, purportedly on the basis of so-called agreement between the respondent and said 2025:JHHC:26514 Upendra Kumar for a consideration of Rs.18,25,000/- per decimal total being Rs.1,46,00,000/-, for which the petitioner paid Rs.47,15,000/- as advance. The petitioner agreed for paying such huge amount as the land was situated on the main road and useful for commercial use. 3. As per the agreement, the sale was to be completed within three months on payment of balance sale consideration. The petitioner thereafter paid an additional amount of Rs.15,50,000/- to the respondent total being Rs.62,65,000/-. The aforesaid payments were made between 05.02.2023 to 06.03.2023. 4. To the utter surprise of the petitioner, the respondent, even before completion of said three months and that too, after taking the aforesaid amount from the petitioner, started avoiding him with an ostensible purpose of deriving extra gain. 5. The respondent thereafter lured the petitioner to take another land in lieu of the advance which, according to the respondent, was also on road measuring 06 decimals in Mouza Gutua Nagari, Thana No.138, Khata No.174, Plot No.25 belonging to one Parmila Sinha and he accordingly executed an agreement dated 12.04.2023 with the petitioner, after adjusting the aforesaid amount of Rs.47,15,000/- and Rs.15,50,000/- respectively which were earlier paid by the petitioner to the respondent as advance. 6. The petitioner, who was also supposed to make further payment of Rs.45,45,000/- within three months, after enquiry came to know that the aforesaid land measuring 06 decimals was not useful for commercial purpose and same was not on main road and it was not 2025:JHHC:26514 even pitch road. He tried to approach the respondent, but with an ulterior motive and extraneous consideration, the respondent started avoiding. 7. Thereafter, the respondent with an oblique motive and without concluding the aforesaid transaction again offered the petitioner to take another land measuring 04 decimals on Ranchi-Hazaribagh Road at a rate of Rs.28.00 Lakh per decimal which is only 600 meter far from the land agreed to be given to the petitioner by virtue of agreement dated 18.02.2023. 8. This in itself shows that the respondent is nurturing dishonest intention to cheat the petitioner which is evident from the fact that when the petitioner visited the said site with the respondent, then the petitioner was subjected to criminal intimidation and threatening by the landowner in presence of the respondent. 9. In the meantime, the petitioner filed Complaint Case No.6292 of 2023 registered under Sections 406/420 of IPC which is presently pending consideration before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi. 10. The respondent preferred Cr. M.P. No. 3047 of 2024 wherein he produced Booking Form (Annexure-3) seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings. 11. The petitioner raised a dispute of arbitration clause contained in the Booking Form by virtue of legal notice dated 07.01.2025 asking the respondent to return his amount of Rs.62,65,000/- with 18% interest. In reply to the said notice, the respondent did not agree to the appointment 2025:JHHC:26514 of an Arbitrator constraining the petitioner to file the instant petition seeking appointment of Arbitrator. Averments in the counter affidavit 12. The respondent has filed a counter affidavit wherein it is acknowledged that the petitioner paid advance of Rs.47,15,000/- and thereafter paid Rs.15,50,000/- to the respondent making part consideration amount of Rs.62,65,000/-. However, it is averred that after payment of the said payments to the respondent, the petitioner was requested to pay the full consideration amount so that the registration of the land could be done in his favour. 13. It is further averred that in the last week of March 2023, the petitioner expressed his inability to pay the remaining amount of Rs.83,35,000/- and requested the respondent to give him a smaller chunk of land at a lower price as he was going through financial crisis. 14. It is thereafter averred that even though as per the terms and conditions of the Booking Form, 50% of the advance amount given by the proposed purchaser was to be forfeited on cancellation of agreement, but the respondent was having bona fide intentions and without forfeiting 50% of the advance amount given by the petitioner entered into a fresh agreement of sale for selling 06 decimals of land with the petitioner on 12.04.2023. 15. It is also averred that it is clarified in the agreement dated 12.04.2023 that the previous agreement between the parties was cancelled on mutual consent. 2025:JHHC:26514 16. It is lastly averred that since the previous agreement dated 18.02.2023 had been cancelled, therefore, the arbitration clause incorporated in the said Booking Form also became unenforceable and as such, this petition is misconceived and ought to be dismissed. Findings of the Court 17. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and gone through the materials available on records. 18. At the outset, it needs to be noted that it is only the Booking Form which contains the arbitration clause which reads as under: “12. Any dispute arises in future between the company and customer/applicant than in such event, every such case shall be referred for arbitration and arbitrator can be advocate or chartered accountant of the company only. And in this matter the decision of the arbitrator will be full and final and both parties will bound to follow those instructions. Any other decision of the customer will not be entertained in this regard.” 19. Undoubtedly, the Booking Form is in the nature of an application wherein the petitioner has applied for allotment of plot in Humbai Kanke Mouza, Thana Kanke No.167 Khata No.8, Plot No.299 having an area of 08 decimals at a rate of Rs.18,25,000/- per decimal, total amount being Rs.1,46,00,000/- and paid amount Rs.10.00 Lakhs by cheque. However, it is not in dispute that it was this amount which 2025:JHHC:26514 further on was treated by the respondent himself as an advance towards sale consideration of Agreement No.2. 20. Not only this, the further sum of Rs.15,50,000/- that has been paid by the petitioner on 06.03.2023 was also part of the sale consideration for the 2nd agreement and that is why, the respondent has in paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit has stated as follows: “11. That in the last week of March 2023, the petitioner expressed his inability to pay the remaining amount of Rs.83,35,000/- and requested the respondent to give him a smaller chunk of land at a lower price as he was going through the financial crisis.” 21. By the 2nd agreement, only the 1st agreement dated 18.02.2023 was forfeited, but the same does not mean that the parties had revoked the arbitration clause as contained in the Booking Form. This would be evident from the fact that at the time when the petitioner issued notice invoking the arbitration clause, the respondent in reply to the same made the following averments: “17. That even if for the sake of argument it is said that arbitration clause can be invoked in the present case, in that case also the arbitrator is to be appointed by my Client’s itself which is as per clause 12 of the terms and condition of the Booking Form. In that view of the matter you are required to make an appropriate application to my Client for referring dispute to arbitration on which as 2025:JHHC:26514 per clause 12 of the arbitrator shall be appointed by my Client for adjudication of any dispute. It is however made clear that if your client is still interested to perform his part as per agreement dated 12.04.2023, he is very much welcome to make the remaining payment of consideration amount within a period of 7 days from the date of receipt of this reply and get the chunk of land registered in his name. It is further important to be noted that after 7 days the original land owner may not be in a position to transfer the said land as he may transfer the same to some other person.” 22. What appears from the aforesaid reply and from the conduct of the parties, more particularly the respondent in treating the advance paid by the petitioner towards the 1st agreement, and thereafter the another advance which was treated by the respondent as advance towards the 2nd agreement, is that the respondent had accepted the terms of the arbitration agreement by conduct as the Booking Form was treated and considered as a document executed in/for the 2nd agreement. 23. It is more than settled that a commercial document having an arbitration clause has to be interpreted in such a manner as to give effect to the agreement rather than invalidate it. The respondent having acted upon the Booking Form by treating the advance mentioning therein as advance towards the 2nd agreement, cannot now turn around and question the agreement itself. 2025:JHHC:26514 Conclusion 24. For the reasons aforesaid, this application is allowed and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dilip Kumar Sinha, a retired Judge of High Court of Jharkhand, presently residing at D/401, Green Residency, Nalanda Colony, Budha Vihar, Tetar Toli, Bariatu, Ranchi, is appointed as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the dispute between the parties. 25. All other contentions available to the parties are left open to be raised before the learned Arbitrator. 26. Learned Arbitrator would be free to lay down the fees and other expenses towards conduct of the arbitration proceedings, however, while doing so he shall take into account the ceiling prescribed under Schedule IV of the Act of 1996 as amended. 27. Learned Arbitrator would endeavor to conclude the proceedings expeditiously by taking into regard the mandate of the Legislature under Section 29-A of the Act of 1996. 28. This Arbitration Application is allowed and disposed of accordingly. 29. Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand disposed off. (Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J.) N.A.F.R. Manoj/-