( 2026:JHHC:19469 ) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Arbitration Application No. 24 of 2026 Rajeev Singh Dugal, aged about 69 years, son of Late Purushottam Singh Dugal, resident of 4 Jubilee Road, C.H.Area, Jamshedpur, P.O.- Bistupur, P.S.- Bistupur, District- East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur, Jharkhand. …. .... Petitioner Versus Ritu Kapila, wife of Late Sanjiv Kapila, resident of Nandavan, House No. 12, Road No. 12, C.H. Area, North West, opposite Sai Mandir, P.O.- Bistupur, District- East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur, Jharkhand. …. …. Respondent ------ CORAM : HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ------ For the Petitioner : Mr Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Ms Ashwini Priya, Advocate Ms Sanjana Shrestha, Advocate Mr Kaushik Chakraborty, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr Pandey Neeraj Rai, Advocate Mr Rohit Ranjan Sinha, Advocate Mr Arpit Khandelwal, Advocate Mr Mehul Raj, Advocate ----- 04 /Dated: 03.07.2026 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. This is an application seeking appointment of an Arbitrator by invoking the provisions of Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (said Act). 3. Some disputes have arisen between the partners constituted by the Deed of Partnership dated 6th May, 2019. The Deed of Partnership contains an arbitration agreement in Clause 22, which reads as follows: - “Any dispute or differences arising regarding interpretation of this Deed shall be referred to Arbitration in accordance with the provisions of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, since Amended. All proceedings either under the Arbitration Act or otherwise, shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of Jamshedpur only.” ( 2026:JHHC:19469 ) 2 4. Mr Pandey Neeraj Rai, learned counsel for the respondent, submitted that the arbitration clause refers to disputes or differences arising from the interpretation of this Deed, and not to the adjudication of any actual disputes or differences between the parties to the Partnership Deed. He submits that the applicant has not raised any disputes or expressed any differences regarding the interpretation of this Deed; therefore, this application seeking the appointment of an Arbitrator must be dismissed. 5. Mr Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the applicant, submits that the interpretation put forth by Mr Pandey Neeraj Rai on Clause 22 is incorrect. He submits that the arbitration clause, as correctly interpreted, refers to arbitration of “any dispute” or “differences arising regarding interpretation of this Deed”. In the alternative, he submits that the arbitration clause, which is, even otherwise, to be liberally construed, encompasses not only disputes and differences between the parties, but also any disagreements on the interpretation of any of the clauses of the partnership deed. 6. The scope for consideration of an application under Section 11 (5) of the said Act is quite limited. It is confined to examining the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement. All other issues, including those now raised on behalf of the respondent, can always be addressed by the Arbitrator or the Arbitral Tribunal once constituted. At this stage, it would not be appropriate to adjudicate on such disputes, which would incidentally include the dispute relating to the interpretation of one of the clauses of the Deed dated 6th May, 2019. 7. The above proposition regarding the limited scope for consideration of an application under Section 11 (5) of the said Act was settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of ‘Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements ( 2026:JHHC:19469 ) 3 under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and Stamp Act, 1899 In Re’1 and SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Krish Spinning2. 8. Further, the mere fact that the Arbitrator is appointed can never mean that the objection now raised on behalf of the respondent has been answered by this Court against the respondent. It also does not mean that the Arbitrator so appointed will not be required to decide on such objection if the same is raised before the Arbitrator by any of the parties. 9. Thus, by clarifying the above position and keeping open all objections of the respondent, including the objection regarding the limited scope of the arbitration clause, a case is made out for the appointment of an Arbitrator. 10. Learned counsel for the parties suggest the appointment of Hon’ble Mr Justice Ambuj Nath, retired Judge of this Court, residing at Flat No. 201, Block-B, Shivam Height, Ghaghra, Namkum, Ranchi as the Arbitrator. Accordingly, Hon’ble Mr Justice Ambuj Nath is appointed as an Arbitrator in this matter. 11. Learned Arbitrator’s fees shall be governed by the Fourth Schedule of the said Act. In the first instance, both parties shall bear such costs and fees equally, and the same shall be subject to any final Award that may be passed by the learned Arbitrator in relation to these matters. 12. Further, 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 receipt of the copy of this order. 1 (2024) 6 SCC 1 2 (2024) 12 SCC 1 ( 2026:JHHC:19469 ) 4 13. All contentions of all parties on the merits of the matter are left open to be decided by the learned Arbitrator in accordance with law and on its own merits. 14. This application is disposed of in the above terms, without any order for costs. (M.S. Sonak, C.J.) July 03, 2026 Ranjeet / R.Kr. NAFR Uploaded on 06.07.2026