[2026:RJ-JP:17545] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Arbitration Application No. 10/2024 M/s Sharma Construction Company, Through Its Proprietors, Village And Post Sabalpura, District Sikar, Rajasthan-332001. ----Petitioner Versus 1. General Manager, North Western Railway, Jawahar Cirlce, Jaipur. 2. Divisional Rail Manager, North Western Railway, Jaipur. ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Arbitration Application No. 11/2024 M/s Sharma Construction Company, Through Its Proprietors, Village And Post Sawalpura, District Sikar, Rajasthan-332001. ----Petitioner Versus 1. General Manager, North Western Railway, Jawahar Circle, Jaipur. 2. Divisional Rail Manager, North Western Railway, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dharmendra Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Heemanshu Meena HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA Order 24/04/2026 1. The petitioner(s) has invoked Clause 64 of the Agreement seeking appointment of an Arbitrator in relation to the dispute which has arisen between the parties, for which notice/representation dated 20.07.2022 was also served on the respondents. The respondents in reply have raised certain issues [2026:RJ-JP:17545] (2 of 3) [ARBAP-10/2024] relating to the dispute, which reflect that the dispute is actually arisen between the parties. 2. This Court in D.B. Civil Reference No.1/2024 titled M/s Devender Singh Contractor vs. Union of India, decided on 14.11.2025, has held as under: “2. It is not in dispute between the parties that there exist an arbitration clause. The arbitration clause is an independent clause which has to be read independently of the other clauses of the Arbitrator and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the Act’) and unless there is an embargo in the said arbitration clause merely because in some other clauses of the agreement, certain parts are excluded would not create embargo for appointment of arbitrator. In, Interplay between Arbitration Agreements (2024) 6 SCC 1, the Supreme Court held that if the arbitration clause exist then the question of arbitrability or non-arbitrability will have to be examined by the concerned arbitrator who is to be appointed by the Court in terms of Section 11(6) of the Act. Leaving it open to the concerned arbitrator to exercise his powers in terms of Section16 of the Act.” 3. This Court notices that a dispute has arisen between the parties and there is an arbitration clause, which provides for adjudication. Owing to the said event having arisen, this Court deems it appropriate to appoint Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satish Kumar Sharma (Retd.), R/o-1, Bhagwan Path, Kings Road, Rail Nagar, Jaipur, as Sole Arbitrator. 4. 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. 5. The Arbitrator is requested to complete the proceedings as per time limit specified under Section 29A of the Act. [2026:RJ-JP:17545] (3 of 3) [ARBAP-10/2024] 6. The arbitration applications are allowed accordingly. 7. Copy of this order be sent to the appointed Arbitrator. 8. A copy of this order be placed in the connected file. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ SANJAY KUMAWAT/RAJAT/33-34