( 2026:JHHC:7839 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Arbitration Application No. 31 of 2025 M/s Abeyaantrix Engineering Pvt. Ltd., a private limited company having its registered address at 102 Sona Enclave Jai Prakash Nagar, P.O and P.S. Bariatu, District Ranchi 834009 (Jharkhand) through its Director Mr. Raju Ranjan Kumar, aged about 38 years, son of Shiv Ratan Singh, resident of Indra Prasth Colony (Jora Talab), Near Hanuman Mandir, Bariatu, P.O+PS Bariatu, District Ranchi …. ….. Applicant Versus Maa Infratech Private Limited having its registered address at D-3, Vaishnav Villa Apartment near Jagdeo Path Ara Garden Road, Patna 800014 (Bihar) through its Authorized Signatory Sanjeev Kumar Singh, aged about not known, son of not known, resident of not known to the petitioner … … ... Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE --------- For the Applicant: Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr. Avishek Prasad, Advocate For the Respondents: None --------- 08/Dated: 20.03.2026 1. Heard Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the Applicant. 2. This is an application under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Said Act) seeking appointment of arbitrator to arbitrate on the dispute between the parties in terms of Clause 8.04 of the Agreement / Work Order which contains an arbitration clause. 3. In this matter, the record shows that much time was spent upon serving the respondent. Finally, on 27.02.2026, Mr Sinha stated that notice has been served upon the respondent through the speed post. He pointed out that this is supported by the service report as also supplementary affidavit filed by the applicant confirming service. 4. On 27.02.2026 despite service, since neither any representative of the respondent nor any advocate appeared, the matter was adjourned to 13th of March, 2026 to provide an additional opportunity ( 2026:JHHC:7839 ) to the respondent. In this order, it was clear that if on the adjourned date the same position continues, the Court will consider disposing of this application in the absence of the respondent or its representatives. 5. Today, when the matter is called out, neither any representative of the respondent nor any Advocate on behalf of the respondent appeared. Accordingly, I proceed to dispose of this application. 6. The agreement between the parties is formulated in the work order dated 27.05.2019 at Annexure-2 to this application. Clause 8.04 indeed contains an arbitration clause. 7. The scope of the proceedings under section 11 of the said Act is minimal, given the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and Stamp Act, 1899 In Re’1 and SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Krish Spinning2. The scope extends to examining the existence of the arbitration agreement. 8. Upon examining the records, there appears to be no doubt as to the existence of the arbitration agreement and therefore, a case is made out for appointment of an arbitrator by invoking the provisions under section 11 of the said Act 9. Mr. Sinha, learned counsel for the applicant, pointed out that by notice dated 21.04.2025, the applicant invoked the arbitration clause and offered opportunity to the respondent to refer the dispute to arbitration in terms of the clause 8.04 of the agreement. He submitted that despite receipt of the notice dated 21.04.2025, the respondent, 1 (2024) 6 SCC 1 2 (2024) 12 SCC 1 ( 2026:JHHC:7839 ) neither responded to the same, nor proceeded for appointment of an arbitrator for resolution of the dispute between the parties. 10. Accordingly, Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned Advocate practicing before this Court, is appointed as an arbitrator to arbitrate in the disputes between the parties. Mr. Amit Kumar Das is present in the Court and says that he neither has any objection to such appointment, nor is he disqualified to arbitrate the dispute between these parties. 11. As noted earlier, all contentions of the parties on merits, maintainability, etc are left open to be decided by the learned Arbitrator because this Court, in these proceedings, has not addressed such disputes. In any event, addressing such disputes would be way beyond the scope of the present proceedings. The clarification is issued only because the respondent, despite service, has chosen not to appear in this Court. 12. Learned Arbitrator’s fees, etc. shall be in terms of the 4th Schedule to the said Act and the same shall be borne equally by the parties. 13. This application is disposed of in the above terms without any order for costs. 14. All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this order. (M. S. Sonak, C.J.) March 20, 2026 N.A.F.R. Ranjeet/R.Kr./Cp.2 Uploaded on 20/03/2026