1 ( 2026:JHHC:7889) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Arbitration Application No. 46 of 2025 Union of India through Ministry of Defence, Department of Military Affairs, Indian Army, 300 Coy Ase Supply Type A, represented through its Authorised Signatory namely Captain Suraj Rai, son of Late Rajan Sur Rai, posted as Second in Command, resident of 300 Company ASC, Supply Type-A, P.O.- Namkum, P.S.- Namkum, District- Ranchi. …. .... Petitioner Versus M/s Z Plus Solutions, through its proprietor namely Mr. Siddarth Kumar S/o Jitendra Kumar, having its registered office at C-504, Manju Vatika, Gola Road, Danapur, P.O. & P.S.- Danapur, Patna, Bihar. …. …. Respondent ------ CORAM : HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ------ For the Petitioner : Mr Prashant Kumar Singh, DSGI Mr. Karbir, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Sudhanshu Kumar Singh, Advocate Mrs. Chainika, Advocate ----- 04 /Dated: 20.03.2026 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. This is an application under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (said Act) seeking appointment of an Arbitrator in terms of clause contained in arbitration agreement dated 10.03.2022. The record shows that agreement dated 10.03.2022 contains the provisions for referring the dispute to arbitration under Clause 27 of the said Act. Thus, the existence of an arbitration clause is not in dispute and was not even disputed. 3. Now, disputes have arisen between the parties and therefore, a case is made out for appointment of an Arbitrator. 4. Mr. Sudhanshu Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent, however, submitted that the arbitration clause contemplates reference of a dispute to the Arbitral Tribunal, comprising three persons. He, therefore, submitted that this application should be dismissed and the applicant should be directed to follow the procedure prescribed under Clause 27. 2 5. The record shows that attempts were made to settle the dispute through bilateral discussion, but the same failed. Further, in this case, the applicant had proposed the name of Lt. Col. Rakesh Kumar Sharma, as one of the Arbitrators. However, the respondent objected to this appointment. Thus, it is clear that the mechanism provided under Clause 27 has failed and the applicant, therefore, is justified in applying under Section 11 of the said Act for appointment of an Arbitrator. 6. Learned counsel for the parties submitted that the claims in this case are in the range of rupees twenty-one lac or above and, therefore, some retired District Judge may be appointed as the Arbitrator. 7. Accordingly, Shri Vijay Kumar Sharma, retired Principal District Judge, Simdega, presently residing at 1-D, Bharat Sitakunj Apartment, Karamtoli, P.O.- Karamtoli, P.S.- Lalpur, Ranchi-834008, is appointed as Arbitrator to arbitrate the disputes that have arisen between the parties. The fees of the Arbitrator will be in accordance with Schedule Fourth of the said Act. The fees will have to be shared equally by the parties. 8. All contentions of all parties are left open to be decided by the Arbitrator in the first instance. 9. This application is disposed of, in the above terms without any order for costs. 10. All concerned must act on an authenticated copy of this order. (M.S. Sonak, C.J.) March 20, 2026 Ranjeet / R.Kr. NAFR Uploaded on 20.03.2026