Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:7834 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Arbitration Application No. 39 of 2025 WITH Arbitration Application No. 40 of 2025 WITH Arbitration Application No. 41 of 2025 1. V.S. Enterprises through its Proprietor Sunil Kumar Verma, Son of Satya Narayan Prasad, aged about- 64 years, at C-15, 4th Phase Indus Trail Area, Adityapur, Town- Jamshedpur, District- Seraikela Kharsawan, Jharkhand-832109. 2. Sunil Kumar Verma, Proprietor of V.S. Enterprises, Son of Satya Narayan Prasad, aged about 64 years, at Flat No. 63, Omni Heights Block No. 1, Near Loyala B.Ed. College, P.O.- Laubasa, P.S.- Birsanagar, Hurlung, Town – Jamshedpur, District – East Singhbhum, Jharkhand-831004. 3. Rashmi Verma, wife of Sunil Kumar Verma, aged about 58 years, at Flat No. 63, Omni Heights Block No. 1, Near Loyala B.Ed. College, P.O.- Laubasa, P.S.- Birsanagar, Hurlung, Town – Jamshedpur, District – East Singhbhum, Jharkhand-831004. ... Petitioners (in all cases) Versus 1. Hero Fin Corporation Limited through its Director registered office at 34, Community Centre, Basant Lok, P.O. & P.S.- Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057. 2. M/s SRCS, Legal (Advocate), A-B, Lower BGround Floor, East of Kailash, P.O. & P.S.- Kailash, Delhi-110065. ... Respondents (in all cases) --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE --------- For the Petitioners: Mr. Abdul Kalam Rashidi, Advocate Md. Azam, Advocate Ms. Aulia Begum, Advocate Mr. Afaque Rashidi, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Raunak Sahay, Advocate --------- 11/Dated: 20.03.2026 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. These are applications seeking appointment of Arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 3. The learned counsel for the applicants accepted that once Sri Rajesh Rai has already been appointed as an Arbitrator by the Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:7834 respondents in these matters. However, he submitted that such appointment is improper, given the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Perkins Eastman Architects DPC and Another v. HSCC (India) Limited, (2020) 20 SCC 760. Accordingly, he submitted that this Court should proceed to appoint a fresh Arbitrator by either ignoring the appointment of Sri Rajesh Rai or terminating the mandate of Sri Rajesh Rai to proceed with the arbitration. 4. The reliefs that are now claimed cannot be granted in an application under Section 11(6) of the said Act. If the applicants have any grievances about the appointment of Sri Rajesh Rai as the Arbitrator, they are free to take out appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum in that regard. However, no relief, as claimed for, can be granted to the applicants in these proceedings. 5. On the above short ground, all these applications are dismissed with liberty to the applicants to adopt appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum for redressal of their grievances. 6. If and when the mandate of the present Arbitrator is terminated and there is any difficulty in securing the appointment of a fresh Arbitrator, this order shall not preclude the applicants from filing application under Section 11 of the said Act. 7. Further, all contentions of all parties are explicitly left open because this Court has not gone into the rival contentions but disposed of these applications with liberty in the above terms. No costs. (M. S. Sonak, C.J.) March 20, 2026 N.A.F.R. Manoj/Sharda/Cp.2 Uploaded on 20.03.2026