Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:19432 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Arbitration Application No. 04 of 2026 M/s. Mukesh & Associates, having their registered office at 2/6 Ranganathar Avenue, Perumal Malai Main Road, Narasothipatty, Salem- 636 004, Tamil Nadu represented through its Partner D. Manojkumar aged about 60 years, S/o. Late Sri. A. Dhirajlal, r/o- No: 2/6, Division -3, Ranganathar Avenue, Perumal Malai Main Road, P.O- Suramangalam and P.S-Suramangalam, District- Salem- 636004 State: Tamil Nadu. ... ... Petitioner Versus Jharkhand State Building Construction Corporation Limited, having its office at 3rd Floor, JSBCCL Building Project Bhawan Campus, P.O. + P.S. Dhurwa, Ranchi-834004, Jharkhand … … Respondent --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE --------- For the Petitioner: Ms Shivani Jaluka, Advocate Mr Parth Jalan, Advocate For the Respondent: Ms Khalida Haya Rashmi, Advocate Mr Ayush Kumar, Advocate --------- 04/Dated: 03.07.2026 1. Heard Ms Shivani Jaluka, who appears with Mr Parth Jalan for the applicant, and Ms Khalida Haya Rashmi, who appears with Mr Ayush Kumar for the respondent. 2. This is an application for appointment of an Arbitrator by invoking the provision of Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (said Act). 3. Disputes have arisen between the parties under the agreement dated 28.04.2017. However, Ms Khalida, learned counsel for the respondent, submits that no dispute has arisen because there is no cause of action for such dispute. She submits that the work under the Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:19432 agreement dated 28.04.2017 is still going on and therefore, it is inconceivable that any cause of action has accrued to the applicant to seek appointment of an Arbitrator or to refer any alleged disputes to such Arbitrator. 4. Ms Khalida submitted that the applicant, by a recent communication dated 10.06.2026, has in fact written to the respondent stating that they would prepare a revised DPR, and that to date no such revised DPR has been submitted. She submits that this is yet another indication to suggest that no disputes have arisen between the parties or in any event, there is no cause of action that has accrued to the applicant to raise any disputes or to seek their reference to arbitration. 5. The scope of consideration of an application under Section 11 of the said Act is extremely limited. It is confined to examining the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement and does not extend to determining the issues now raised by Ms Khalida, the learned counsel for the respondent. This does not mean that Ms Khalida’s contentions are being rejected. It only means that such contentions can be raised before the Arbitrator, who would be required to decide them in accordance with law and on their own merits. Based on such objections, however, the very appointment of an Arbitrator cannot be resisted. 6. In support of the above, reference can be made to the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under Arbitration Act, 1996 & Stamp Act, Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:19432 1899, In re, (2024) 6 SCC 1, and SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning, (2024) 12 SCC 1. 7. Both these decisions refer to the limited scope of the considerations when deciding an application under Section 11(6) of the said Act. These decisions also hold that, merely because an Arbitrator is appointed on a prima facie finding as to the existence of an arbitration clause, the respondent is not precluded from raising all other objections before the Arbitrator, and that the Arbitrator is required to decide such objections in accordance with law and on their own merits. In this case, Clause 9.4 of the agreement dated 28.04.2017 contains an arbitration clause. Therefore, the prima facie existence of the arbitration clause cannot be disputed. 8. Accordingly, Mr Atanu Banerjee, learned Advocate who practices before this Court and is residing at B.N. Banerjee House, Bajrang Nagar (Haider Ali Road), Kokar, Ranchi-834001 (email: atanu3375@gmail.com), is appointed as an Arbitrator in this matter. 9. All contentions of all parties, including the objections raised by Ms Khalida on behalf of the respondent, are specifically kept open. If such objections are raised before the Arbitrator, the Arbitrator must decide the same in accordance with law. 10. The fees of the Arbitrator shall be governed by Schedule IV of the said Act and in the first instance, the same could be borne by both the parties equally. Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:19432 11. The learned Arbitrator is requested to forward the statutory statement of disclosures under Section 11(8) read with Section 12(1) of the said Act to the parties within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 12. Once again, it is clarified that all contentions of all parties on the merits of the matter, or even on the issue as to whether a cause of action has at all accrued, are left open, as it was beyond the scope of the present proceedings to decide the same. 13. Learned Arbitrator would endeavour to conclude the proceedings expeditiously by taking into regard the mandate of the Legislature under Section 29-A of the Act of 1996. 14. Accordingly, this application is disposed of without an order as to costs. (M. S. Sonak, C.J.) July 03, 2026 N.A.F.R. Manoj/Sharda/Cp.2 Uploaded on 04.07.2026