Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:19457 p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Arbitration Application No. 50 of 2025 M/s. Arti Infra Project Private Limited, Lead member of consortium of M/s. Aarti Infra Projects Private Limited & M/s. Khalatkar Constructions Consortium (JV), represented through Assistant Manager namely Pritam Chafale @ Pritam Sudhakar Chafale @ Preetam, aged about 25 years having Office at Block No. 310, Baba Santosh Palace, Opposite Haldiram Factory, Wardhman Nagar, Bhandara Road, P.O & P.S. Nagpur, Nagpur, Maharashtra - 440008. ... ... Petitioner Versus Uranium Corporation of India, represented through its Chairman and Managing Director namely Dr. Kacham Anand Rao, having its office at Corporation of India Limited, Jaduguda, P.O. and P.S.-Jaduguda Mines, Singhbhum (East), Jharkhand-832 102. … … Respondent --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE --------- For the Petitioner: Mr Chandan Tiwari , Advocate Mr Rishi Ranjan Vats, Advocate For the Respondent: Mr Sudarshan Shrivastava, Advocate --------- 07/Dated: 03.07.2026 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. This application seeks appointment of arbitrator on the ground that some disputes have arisen between the parties in relation to agreement dated 27.04.2017 which provides for resolution of such disputes through arbitration. 3. Since the agreement contains an arbitration clause i.e. 47.2, the learned counsel for the respondent was requested to address the Court regarding the objections raised by and on behalf of the respondent. Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:19457 p. 2 4. Mr Sudarshan Shrivastava, the learned counsel for the respondent, first submitted that the applicant cannot maintain this application seeking the appointment of an arbitrator because the applicant is under liquidation and the CIRP is ongoing. 5. Secondly, Mr Shrivastava submitted that, in this case, the claims are frivolous and, in any event, were never raised within the 90-day period prescribed under Clause 47.2.1 of the agreement. This clause provides that if the claims are not raised within 90 days, the contractor will be deemed to have waived such claims, and the respondent shall be discharged and released of all liabilities under the contract in respect of these claims. Mr Shrivastava submitted that this is yet another reason why no arbitrator should be appointed in respect of such barred claims. 6. Mr Shrivastava, after referring to paragraphs 15, 16 and 17, submitted that the claims regarding payments under the final bill, security deposit and retention money have already been cleared pursuant to the orders made by the NCLT, Mumbai. He submitted that the very same claims cannot now be raised in arbitration proceedings. He submitted that this is yet another ground why this application should be dismissed. 7. Finally, Mr Shrivastava, relying upon Clause 47.1 of the agreement, submitted that the mandatory conciliation procedure was prescribed before the parties could be referred to arbitration. He submitted that the applicant never followed such procedure, and that this is also a valid ground for dismissing this application. Mr Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:19457 p. 3 Shrivastava relied upon paragraph 19 of the counter affidavit in which this objection has been elaborated. 8. Mr Chandan Tiwari, who appears with Mr Rishi Ranjan Vats for the petitioner, submitted that the liquidation proceedings before the NCLT stand concluded by the order of the NCLT delivered on 03.02.2023. He submitted that there can now be no bar to the applicant maintaining this application. He submitted that in any event, such issues cannot be raised in opposition to an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (said Act) and could always be left open to be raised before the Arbitral Tribunal, once it is appointed. 9. Mr Tiwari further submitted that the issues like limitation or waiver, apart from being untenable, cannot be raised in an application to oppose the appointment of an Arbitral Tribunal under Section 11(6) of the said Act. He submitted that, at most, these issues could be left open for determination by the Arbitral Tribunal once it is constituted. 10. Mr Tiwari submitted that even the objection regarding non- compliance with the conciliation mechanism is incorrect and, in any event, cannot be regarded as a bar to invoking the arbitration clause. He relied on M/s. Oasis Projects Ltd v. Managing Director, National Highway and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited in Arb. P. No. 1364 of 2022 decided on 07.02.2023 by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. He submitted that in any event, even this issue can be raised before the Arbitral Tribunal but the same cannot Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:19457 p. 4 be a ground to oppose the appointment of an Arbitrator or an Arbitral Tribunal. 11. The rival contentions now fall for determination. 12. At the outset, there can be no dispute about the existence of the arbitration clause in the agreement dated 27.04.2017 with which this Court is concerned. Quite fairly, no such dispute as to the existence of the arbitration clause was raised. Such arbitration agreement is contained in Clause 47.2 of the agreement dated 27.04.2017. 13. The scope for consideration of an application under Section 11(6) of the said Act is extremely limited. It is limited to examining the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement and does not extend to determining issues of limitation, etc., which are now sought to be raised on behalf of the respondent. 14. In the case of Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under Arbitration Act, 1996 & Stamp Act, 1899, In re, (2024) 6 SCC 1, and in the case of SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning, (2024) 12 SCC 1, this proposition has been laid down and reiterated. 15. The objections now raised by Mr Shrivastava have been incorporated in paragraphs 15 to 17 and 19 of the counter affidavits. At his request, these paragraphs are transcribed below for the convenience of reference: “15. That UCIL has paid the RA bills on regular basis to the party, however, it came to the notice through internal audit Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:19457 p. 5 that the Consortium is under liquidation and filed an application before NCLT, Mumbai being no. CP(IB) No.3884/MB/2018 dated 05/09/2018 under section 10 of Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). UCIL, therefore, has stopped to release the final bill, security deposit and retention money, as the party filed petition before NCLT. Hon'ble NCLT pronounced an order dated 01/05/2019 prohibits all kinds of transactions with the Corporate Debtor and the application was allowed. Party insisted to release the security deposit, retention money and final bill. UCIL has denied to release the same, as party is under liquidation. CA Ashish Soaji, Insolvency Professional communicated through a letter dated 10/02/2023 to release Rs.58,22,457/- and Rs.95,70,373/ to a total tune of Rs. 1,53,92,830/-. 16. That CA Ashish Soaji, Insolvency Professional filed an Interlocutory Application (IA) no. 3707 of 2022 in Company Petition no.-3884 of 2018 before the NCLT, Mumbai and sought the relief from the Ld. Tribunal to release the withhold amounts with respect to Security Deposit and retention money. An interim order being no. IA/3707/2022 dated 21/06/2023 was pronounced by Hon'ble Tribunal to release the amount against Security deposit, retention money etc. to the party as applicable. 17. That in compliance of the said NCLT order, UCIL has released the payment with respect to Security Deposit, Retention money and Final bill as detailed below: Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:19457 p. 6 M/s Aarti Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd M/s Khaltkar Construction TOTAL (In Rs.) Description Payment Made on Amount (In Rs.) Payment made on Amount (In Rs.) S D 15/11/2023 58,22,457.00 15/11/2023 30,97,306.00 89,19,763.00 S D 15/11/2023 2,19,144.00 2,19,144.00 Retention money 07/12/2023 21,34,035.00 12/02/2024 20,93,079.00 42,27,114.00 Final Bill 06/11/2023 52,154.00 06/10/2023 72,074.00 1,24,228.00 Total 82,27,790.00 52,62,459.00 1,34,90,249.00 Statement of payment made against work executed SN Description Amount (in Rs.) Description Amount (in Rs.) 1 Total order value 18,27,78,139.58 Amount paid through RA bill 13,37,51,885.00 2 Total work done 16,55,19,948.00 Amount paid in Final bill 1,24,228.00 3 LD deducted @ 10% order value 1,82,77,814.00 Amount released by way of SD 91,38,907.00 4 Amount released by way of Retention money 42,27,114.00 5 Amount requires to be paid 14,72,42,134.00 Total amount paid 14,72,42,134.00 19. That Clause 47.1 of GCC refers about conciliation. Clause 47.1.1 Any disputes, differences, whatsoever, arising between the parties out of or relating to the construction, meaning, scope, operation or effect of this contract shall be settled between the employer and the contractor amicably. In case such amicable settlement is not possible, the parties shall take recourse to the conciliation proceedings for resolving such dispute, question, claim or differences. Clause 47.1.2 envisages about Conciliatory Committee comprises of the following: A nominee of the Employer -Member A nominee of the Contractor/Supplier -Member Head of Law/Law officer of the employer -Member & Convener Clause 47.2 of GCC of NIT refers about Arbitration In the said clause it was mentioned the following: Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:19457 p. 7 “It is also a term of the contract that if the contractor does not make any demand for arbitration in respect of any claim(s) in writing within 90 days of receiving the intimation from the Corporation that the bill is ready for acceptance of the Contractor, the claim of the Contractor will be deemed to have been waived and absolutely barred and the company shall be discharged and released of all liabilities under the contract in respect of these claims”. 16. As regards the objection regarding bar of limitation provided under Clause 47.2.1 or the objection that certain amounts that are now being claimed by the applicant have already been paid by the respondent to the applicant under the orders of the NCLT, these are matters that can be raised before the Arbitral Tribunal once it is constituted. The respondent has specific liberty to raise all such contentions. However, based upon such contentions, the very appointment of an Arbitrator or the constitution of an Arbitral Tribunal cannot be resisted. 17. In the case of M/s. P.K. Agarwala v. MECON Limited and UCIL in Arbitration Application No. 34 of 2025, which is incidentally the respondent in the present matter disposed of on 04.02.2026 by this Court, similar arguments were rejected by this Court after holding the scope of examination under Section 11(6) of the said Act is confined to the existence of an arbitration agreement and not to all other issues including the issue of “accord and satisfaction” that has been raised in the said matter. Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:19457 p. 8 18. No doubt, by mere appointment of an Arbitrator, the respondent is not precluded from raising all such issues before the Arbitrator. However, raising of such issues is not a very good ground to resist the appointment of an Arbitrator, given the limited scope of an application under Section 11(6) of the said Act. 19. On the issue of the applicant's competence to maintain the present petition, at least prima facie credence will have to be given to the order dated 03.02.2023 passed by the NCLT, which is enclosed with the rejoinder affidavit filed by the applicant. This order, in paragraph 36, states that the resolution plan annexed to M.A. No. 329 of 2020 in C.P. 3884 of 2018 is approved and shall become effective from the date of the order and shall be deemed to be a part of the order. This order also specifies that the moratorium under Section 14 of the Code shall cease to have effect from this date. Thus, at least prima facie, it cannot be said that CIRP is on and consequently, the applicant is barred from maintaining the present application. In any event, as suggested by Mr Tiwari, even this issue is kept open to be raised before the Arbitrator once appointed. 20. As regards the alleged non-compliance with the conciliation procedure provided in the agreement, this Court first finds that there is a dispute as to whether there has been compliance. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that communications were addressed to the respondent to initiate the conciliation process, but the respondent avoided the same. This is no doubt disputed by the respondent. Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:19457 p. 9 However, no provision is shown under which it could be said that the alleged non-compliance operates as a complete bar to seek even the appointment of an arbitrator by filing an application under Section 11(6) of the said Act. 21. Therefore, even the issue of alleged non-compliance with the conciliation process, or the effect thereof, is kept open, and the respondent can raise the same before the Arbitrator once appointed. 22. Thus, in short, by leaving open all contentions now raised by the respondent, a case is made out for the appointment of an Arbitrator. Such contentions can be raised before the arbitrator, and, if raised, the arbitrator will address them in accordance with law and on their own merits. However, as submitted earlier, such objections cannot serve as grounds to resist the very appointment of an Arbitrator. 23. For all the above reasons, this application is allowed. Accordingly, Justice Dilip Kumar Sinha, a Former Judge of this Court, presently residing at D/4001, Green Residency, Nalanda Colony, Budha Vihar, Tetar Toli, Bariatu, Ranchi, is hereby appointed as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties under the agreement dated 27.04.2017. 24. 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. 25. The learned Arbitrator is requested to forward the statutory statement of disclosures under Section 11(8) read with Section 12(1) of Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:19457 p. 10 the said Act to the parties within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 26. All contentions of the parties are left to be decided by the learned Arbitrator. 27. Learned Arbitrator would endeavour to conclude the proceedings expeditiously by having regard to the mandate of the Legislature under Section 29-A of the said Act. 28. This Arbitration Application is disposed of in the above terms without any order for costs. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. (M. S. Sonak, C.J.) July 03, 2026 N.A.F.R. Manoj/Sharda/Cp.2 Uploaded on 04.07.2026