HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Arbitration Application No. 62/2024 M/s Bharat Spun Pipe And Construction Co. ----Petitioner Versus Union of India ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jatin Agarwal and Ms. Anita Goyal For Respondent(s) : Mr. C.S. Sinha, CGC with Mr. Dev Yadav HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA Order 23/01/2026 1. Learned counsel appearing for the Railways has objected to the application moved for appointment of an arbitrator and submits that the notice dated 09.01.2024 alleged to have been sent to the Department were never received. 2. Further he has invited our attention to Clause 64(1)(iv) of the General Condition of Contract to submit that claim should have been raised within 120 days, while the last payment was made on 13.04.2022. The demand for arbitration has been raised on 09.01.2024, even if it admitted that the notice was issued by the appellants. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that so far as the provisions of Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the Act’) are concerned, they would not be curtained by the conditions of the contract for the purpose of appointment of arbitrator and they would be in accordance with (2 of 3) [ARBAP-62/2024] the limitation provided for raising of the disputes in the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Arbitration Petition No. 29/2023, Arif Azim Company Limited Vs. Aptech Limited dated 01.03.2024, 2024 (5) SCC 313”. 4. We have considered the submissions. It would be apposite to quote Clause 64(1)(i) pertaining to demand for arbitration: “64(1)(i) Demand for Arbitration In the event of any dispute or differences between the parties hereto as to the construction or operation of this contract, or the respective rights & liabilities of the parties on any matter, in question, dispute or differences on any account or as to the withholding by the Railway of any certificate to which the contractor may claim to be entitle to, or if the Railway fails to make a decision within 120 days, then in any such cases, but except in any of the “excepted matters” referred to in Clause 63 of these Conditions, the contractor, after 120 days but within 180 days of his representing his final claim on disputed matters, shall demand in writing that the dispute & differences be referred to arbitration.” 5. Thus, the period of 120 days is with regards to the demand to be raised before the Railways, while period of 180 days has been provided from the date of representation under the clause, within six months of issuing of the notice for representation, the conditions of contract allowed the person for seeking to appoint an arbitrator. That apart, in terms of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arif Azim Company Limited (supra), (3 of 3) [ARBAP-62/2024] Section 11 the application would not be covered within the limitation provided under any conditions of the contract but to the limitation provided under the Limitation Act. 6. In view thereto, the application moved would be treated to be within time considering that there is a dispute between the parties. 7. This Court deems it appropriate to appoint Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Bhandari (Retd.) resident of Bhandari Farm House, Near Hingoniya Goushala, Jaipur, as sole Arbitrator. 8. The sole Arbitrator shall be paid fee in accordance with the Fourth Schedule of the Act, 1996, as amended. The fee of the arbitrator will be equally borne by both the parties. 9. The arbitrator is requested to complete the proceedings as per the time limit specified under Section 29A of the Act. 10. The arbitration application is allowed accordingly. 11. Copy of this order be sent to the appointed arbitrator. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ DEEPTA ARORA /2