Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2026 DAILYLAW 2542 (RAJ)

GANESHAM INFRATECH DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. v. SMT. RASHMI KALA W/O LATE SH. VINOD KALA

ARBAP/58/2023 · 2026-04-24

Sanjeev Prakash Sharma

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2026:RJ-JP:17551] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Arbitration Application No. 58/2023 Ganesham Infratech Developers Pvt. Ltd., Through Its Director Having Its Registered Office At Chandra House, Plot No. 28, Indra Colony, Banipark, Jaipur (Raj.). ----Petitioner Versus Smt. Rashmi Kala W/o Late Sh. Vinod Kala, R/o G-20, Trimurti Building, North Evenue Road, Santa Cruz West Mumbai (Maharashtra). ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jatin Agarwal with Ms. Anita Goyal Mr. Naman Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Saransh Saini with Mr. Vinod Kumar HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA Order 24/04/2026 1. Both the parties are having dispute in relation to the agreement dated 26.09.2014 executed between them wherein, Clause 28 exists as an arbitration clause, which reads as under: “;g fd bl bdjkjukesa ds rgr izFke Ik{k o f}rh; i{k ds e/; fuekZ.k izfØ;k ds nkSjku vFkok fuekZ.k iw.kZ gksus ij dCtk lkSaius dh izfØ;k rd dksbZ fookn mRiUu gksrk gS rks mls bf.M;u vkchZVªs'ku ,.M dksflys'ku ,DV 1996 ds izko/kkuksa ds rgr fuiVk;k tk;sxkAmDr vf/kfu;e ds rgr vkilh lgefr ls ,dy iap dh fu;qfDr dh tk;sxh ,oa ,slk fookn mDr e/;LFk ds jSQj fd;k tk;sxkA ,dy iap dk fu.kZ; nksuksa i{+kksa ij ck/;dkjh gksxkA fdlh Hkh i{k dks bl bdjkjukesa ds rgr mBs fdlh fookn ds fy, fdlh Hkh l{ke U;k;ky; esa tkus dk vf/kdkj rc rd ugha gksxk tc rd fd vkchZVªs'ku fdlh mfpr dkj.k ls vokMZ nsus esa vl{ke ugha gksA” [2026:RJ-JP:17551] (2 of 2) [ARBAP-58/2023] 2. In view of the aforesaid, this Court deems it appropriate to appoint Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq (Retd. Chief Justice) resident of 0-7, Bhagat Vatika, Civil Lines, Jaipur as sole Arbitrator. 3. The sole Arbitrator shall be paid fee in accordance with the Fourth Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the Act’), as amended. The fee of the arbitrator will be equally borne by both the parties. 4. The arbitrator is requested to complete the proceedings as per time limit specified under 29A of the Act. 5. The arbitration application is allowed accordingly. 6. Copy of this order be sent to the appointed arbitrator. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ Simple Kumawat /27