[2026:RJ-JP:936] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Arbitration Application No. 39/2025 M/s Ramnarayan Contractor, (Aa Class) Through Its Authorized Representative Shri Subhash Chandra S/o Late Shri Ramnarayan Ji, Aged About 58 Years, R/o Near Lakshmi Woolen Mill, Sarvodaya Basti, District Bikaner, Rajasthan ----Petitioner Versus 1. Chief Engineer- Cum - Additional Secretary, Water Resources Department Jaipur, Bhawani Singh Road, Jyoti Mod, Jaipur. 2. Additional Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Zone - Jaipur, Sinchai Bhawan, Jln Marg, Jaipur. 3. Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department, Division Bharatpur, Krishna Nagar, Bharatpur . ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nitish Kumar Bagri with Mr. Hariom Vyas & Mr. Sunil Yugh For Respondent(s) : Mr. B.S. Chhaba, AAG assisted by Mr. Hardik Singh HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA Order 09/01/2026 1. This application has been filed by the concerned applicant seeking appointment of Arbitrator in terms of Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the Act of 1996’). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that an agreement was entered into between the parties, wherein as per Clause 24.5, amicable settlement was required to be done and on dissatisfaction of the same, arbitration was required to be the method for resolution of the dispute. 3. It is stated that upon the dispute having been arisen relating to the contract, a notice was served upon the respondents vide registered notice dated 07.01.2025. When the time expired, in [2026:RJ-JP:936] (2 of 3) [ARBAP-39/2025] terms of Clauses 24.5 and 24.6, the present application has been moved. 4. Reply has been filed by the respondents, who have objected and pointed out that the contract was over between the parties and in fact penalty was imposed on the petitioner. He has also stated that after the contract ended on 25.10.2024, there was no occasion for appointment of an Arbitrator. He has also stated that the firm has not taken action in terms of Clause 23 of General Conditions of Contract. 5. We have considered the submissions. 6. We find that the dispute is with regard to the claim of penalty amount and the pending bills as against the petitioner and, therefore, the same would be covered in terms of Clauses 24.5 and 24.6, as a dispute between the parties. For reference Clauses 24.5 and 24.6 are quoted as below: “24.5 Amicable Settlement Where a notice of dissatisfaction has been given under Sub- Clause 24.4 above, both parties shall attempt to settle the dispute amicably before the commencement of arbitration. However, unless both parties agree otherwise, the party giving a notice of dissatisfaction in accordance with Sub-Clause 24.4 above should move to commence arbitration after the fifty-sixth (56) day from the day on which a notice of dissatisfaction was given, even if no attempt at an amicable settlement has been made. 24.6 Arbitration Any dispute between the parties arising out of or in connection with the Contract not settled amicably in accordance with Sub- Clause 24.5 above and in respect of which the Adjudicator’s decision (if any) has not become final and binding shall be finally settled by arbitration. Arbitration shall be conducted as follows: (a) if the Contract is with foreign contractors (or if the lead partner is a foreign contractor, in case of JV), international arbitration with proceedings administered by the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) and conducted under the ICC Rules or Arbitration; by one or more arbitrators appointed in accordance with said arbitration rules. [2026:RJ-JP:936] (3 of 3) [ARBAP-39/2025] (b) if the Contract is with domestic contractors, arbitration with proceedings conducted in accordance with the laws of the Employer’s country. The place of arbitration shall be a neutral location determined in accordance with the applicable rules of arbitration; and the arbitration shall be conducted in the language for communications defined in Sub-Clause 3.1.” 7. Having reached to the conclusion that dispute has arisen between the parties and the same has not been amicably settled and notice has already been served upon the respondent-State, we deem it appropriate to send the matter for arbitration. 8. With the consent of the parties, this Court directs appointment of Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Sabina, Acting Chief Justice (Retd.), resident of House No.1842, Section 34-D, Chandigarh, to act as an Arbitrator and to decide all issues without prejudice to the rights and contentions raised in the present application and in the reply. The arbitration fees shall be in accordance with the Fourth Schedule of the Act of 1996, as amended. The fee of the Arbitrator will be equally borne by both the parties. The place of arbitration shall be at Jaipur. 9. The parties are at liberty to raise all objections before the Arbitrator including preliminary objections raised by the respondents. 10. The Arbitrator is requested to complete the proceedings as per time limit specified under Section 29A of the Act. 11. The arbitration application is allowed accordingly. 12. Copy of this order be sent to the appointed Arbitrator. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA), ACTING CJ RAJAT/127