( 2026:JHHC:17051 ) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Arbitration Application No. 21 of 2026 M/s Shivay Global, a partnership firm having its office at Neel Ratan Street, Near Panchmukhi Mandir, Upper Bazar, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, Ranchi through its partner Jaswant Kumar, aged about 48 Years, S/o Late Raju Burman, Resident of Neel Ratan Street, Near Panchmukhi Mandir, Upper Bazar, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District- Ranchi. …. .... Petitioner Versus 1. Sita Devi, Wife of Vir Bahadur Choudhary, Resident of Nutan Apartment, Flat No 103 Booty Road, Jai Prakash Nagar, P.O. Bariyatu, P.S. Sadar, District, Ranchi 834009. 2. Vir Bahadur Choudhary, Resident of Nutan Apartment, Flat No 103 Booty Road, Jai Prakash Nagar, P.O. Bariyatu, P.S Sadar, District- Ranchi 834009. …. …. Respondents ------ CORAM : HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ------ For the Petitioner : Mrs Darshana Poddar Mishra, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr Shashank Kumar, Advocate ----- 04 /Dated: 12.06.2026 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) for the appointment of an Arbitrator. 3. The disputes have arisen between the parties in relation to the development agreement dated 15th April, 2024. Article-X of the Development Agreement provides for an arbitration clause. The same is transcribed below for the convenience of reference: - ARTICLE X-LEGAL PROCEDURES It is hereby expressly agreed by and between the parties hereto that it will be the responsibilities of the LAND OWNER to defend all actions and proceedings in respect of the title and/or possession of the LAND PROPERTY. The LAND OWNER are herewith handing over all the relevant copies documents regarding the title of possession, receipts and other legal papers concerning the LAND ( 2026:JHHC:17051 ) 2 PROPERTY referred above. The LAND OWNER further assures and confirms the DEVELOPER that any other document required in connection with the said LAND PROPERTY shall be handed over for inspection within a reasonable time at his expense. This agreement is irrevocable in the extent and both parties shall have to abide by all the terms and conditions mentioned herein. The parties agree that all dispute between the LANDOWNERS and the Developer shall be referred to sole arbitrator in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Courts of Ranchi will alone have the jurisdiction in all- legal matters, arising out of or concerning this Development Agreement. That the DEVELOPER and/or its transferees and the Landowners and/or their transferees shall be liable to pay and bear proportionate charges on account of all taxes (GST, Capital Gain Tax, any leviable tax(s). Society Maintenance Tax(s), etc.) and other impositions payable in respect of their share.” 4. The respondents have filed a counter-affidavit opposing the reference to arbitration. In the counter affidavit, the main contention is that the respondents are an elderly couple, i.e. one of them is a retired Government servant, and the alleged development agreement dated 15.04.2024 was entered into in absolute good faith and placing trust in the petitioner/developer. It is further pleaded that the petitioner/developer failed to provide the respondents with a copy of the signed agreement. Despite requests, copies of the signed agreement were not provided. 5. There is a further defence raised by the respondents that the arbitration clause in Article-X of the agreement is fatally defective and incomplete, ( 2026:JHHC:17051 ) 3 because it states that “all disputes between the landowners and the developer shall be referred to sole arbitrator in accordance with the provisions of the said Act” without specifying any procedure for appointment and fallback mechanisms, or any timeline for appointment. It is stated that such an incomplete clause cannot constitute a valid and binding arbitration within the meaning of Section 7 of the Act, read with the Contract Act, 1872. 6. Further, a defence is raised that Article-X expressly states that the Court of Ranchi alone will have jurisdiction over all legal matters arising out of or concerning the development agreement. It is contended that this clause is inconsistent with the alleged arbitration clause that the petitioner/developer relies upon. It is submitted that this clause excludes the resolution of disputes by arbitration. Therefore, he submitted that no arbitrator could be appointed based upon a “non-operative, contradicted and incomplete arbitration clause”. 7. Mrs Darshana Poddar Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the scope of proceedings under Section 11(6) of the said Act is limited to examining the prima facie existence of an arbitration clause. She submitted that the defences, which have now been raised in a counter affidavit, have crossed the bar and are untenable in such proceedings. In any event, she submitted that the mere appointment of an arbitrator does not preclude the respondents from raising all legal defences, including defences regarding the existence of the arbitration clause or its validity before the Arbitrator once appointed. Accordingly, she submitted that this application should be allowed and a suitable Arbitrator be appointed. ( 2026:JHHC:17051 ) 4 8. Mr Shashank Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents, reiterated the defence urged in the counter-affidavit. He submitted that since the signed copy of the development agreement was not furnished to the respondents, despite several requests, the arbitration clause contained therein cannot bind the respondents. He further submitted that there are inherent contradictions in the arbitration clause and, in any event, it is incomplete. He submitted that no arbitrator should be appointed based upon such a clause in the development agreement. 9. I have considered the rival contentions, and I am satisfied that a case has been made out for the appointment of an Arbitrator. 10. Article-X of the development agreement, as set out above, establishes the prima facie existence of an arbitration clause. The scope of proceedings under Section 11 (6) of the said Act extends to examining the prima facie existence of an arbitration clause. Once this threshold requirement is met, there is no basis to refuse the appointment of an arbitrator. 11. Further, the mere appointment of an arbitrator or the constitution of an Arbitral Tribunal does not preclude the respondents from raising all permissible defences, including defences regarding the competence of the arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes that have arisen between the parties. 12. The decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of ‘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.. support the appointment of an arbitrator in the circumstances involved in the present case. These 1 (2024) 6 SCC 1 2 (2024) 12 SCC 1 ( 2026:JHHC:17051 ) 5 decisions hold that the scope of proceedings under section 11(6) of the said Act is extremely limited and confined only to the examination of the existence of an arbitration agreement. Further, when the Referral Court renders a prima facie opinion about the existence of the arbitration clause, neither the Arbitral Tribunal nor the Court enforcing the arbitral award will be bound by such a prima facie view. Despite such a prima facie view, the Arbitral Tribunal will be at liberty to examine this issue in depth. This will protect the Arbitral Tribunal's jurisdictional competence to decide on issues concerning the existence and validity of the arbitration agreement. 13. Accordingly, even after considering the objections raised on behalf of the respondents, I am satisfied that the case has been made out for the appointment of an Arbitrator. 14. Accordingly, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tapen Sen, former Judge of this Court, residing at Flat No. 3903, C-Block, 9th Floor, Sri Ram Gardens Apartment, opposite Reliance Smart, Kanke Road, Ranchi, is appointed as Arbitrator to arbitrate the dispute between the parties, arising out of or in relation to the Development Agreement dated 15.04.2024. 15. All contentions and objections on behalf of the respondents, including the contention regarding non-existence of the arbitration clause, its non- enforceability, etc., are left open for the decision of the Arbitrator now appointed. 16. The learned Arbitrator is requested to forward the statutory statement of disclosure under section 11(8), read with section 12(1) of the said Act, to the parties within a period of fifteen days from the receipt of the copy of this order. ( 2026:JHHC:17051 ) 6 17. All arbitration costs and fees of the learned Arbitrator shall be borne by the parties equally in the first instance, and shall be subject to any final Award that may be passed by the learned Arbitrator in relation to costs. The arbitrator's fees will be governed by the Fourth Schedule to the said Act. 18. This application is disposed of in the above terms, without any order for costs. (M.S. Sonak, C.J.) June 12, 2026 Ranjeet / R.Kr. NAFR Uploaded on 16.06.2026