Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 5823 (JHR)

M/S RAMADHAR SINGH AND SONS THROUGH ITS PARTNER HARENDRA SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH DIRECTOR GENERAL CENTRAL PUBLIC WORKS DEPTT

WPC/3199/2022 · 2026-04-13

Rajesh Shankar

Writ Petition (Civil)body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:JHHC:10496-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.3199 of 2022 ----- M/s. Ramadhar Singh & Sons, a partnership firm, duly registered under the Indian Partnership Act, having office at M.I.G.: D/49, Housing Colony, Dhanbad (Jharkhand), through its partner namely Harendra Singh, s/o Late Ramadhar Singh, R/o H.I.G., D/49, Housing Colony, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, District-Dhanbad. .......... Petitioner. -Versus- 1. Union of India through Director General, Central Public Works Department, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi, P.O. & P.S. New Delhi, District New Delhi. 2. Special Director General, Central Public Works Department, Project Region, Kolkata, 1st MSO Building, 5th Floor, 234/4, AJC Bose Road, Nijam Palace, P.O. & P.S. AJC Bose Road, District Kolkata. 3. Superintending Engineer, Central Public Works Department, GPOA Building, Burma Mines, P.O. & P.S. Burma Mines, District Jamshedpur. 4. Executive Engineer & Senior Manager (C), Central Public Works Department, GPOA Building, Burma Mines, P.O. & P.S. Burma Mines, District Jamshedpur. 5. Indian Bank, through its Senior Manager, having Branch at Dhanbad, Dhanbad Market, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad. 6. M/s. Subhas Chandra Singh, partnership firm through its partner, namely, Subhas Chandra Singh, s/o Late Govind Dev Brahamchari, r/o Radha Mandir, Namkum, Ranchi. .......... Respondents. ----- CORAM : HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate For the UOI : Mr. Prashant Pallav, Advocate ----- Order No.14 Date: 13.04.2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner, by instituting this petition, challenges the notice on final action under Clause 3 of the agreement dated 24th June, 2022 determining the contract entered into with the respondents. 2026:JHHC:10496-DB 2 3. Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned A.S.G.I., objected to the entertainment of this petition by submitting that the agreement between the parties contains an arbitration clause and the dispute now raised, is clearly arbitrable under such arbitration clause. He refers to the counter affidavit of the respondents wherein such a plea has been specifically raised. 4. Upon perusing the determination notice dated 24th June, 2022, the clauses of the agreement and the arbitration clause no.25 contained in the agreement, we agree with Mr. Prashant Pallav that the dispute now raised, is arbitrable and is best resolved through arbitration. 5. At this stage, learned counsel for the parties, on instructions, agree that the disputes between the parties may be referred to the arbitration. They propose the appointment of Mr. Rahul Kumar Gupta, the learned Advocate, practising before this Court, as the Arbitrator. 6. Accordingly, Mr. Rahul Kumar Gupta, having his office at 97/B Burdwan Compound, Opposite Holy Cross Convent School, Lalpur, Ranchi (e-mail: advchambers@gmail.com), is appointed as the Arbitrator to adjudicate in the disputes that have arisen between the parties. 7. Within two weeks of this order being supplied to Mr. Rahul Kumar Gupta, he shall make the necessary statutory disclosures in terms of Section 11(8) read with Section 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 2026:JHHC:10496-DB 3 8. The fees of the Arbitrator shall be in terms of the Schedule-IV of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and such fees and other expenses relating to arbitration shall be shared equally by both the parties. 9. All contentions of all the parties on the merits of the disputes are left explicitly open for the learned Arbitrator to decide in accordance with law and on their own merits. 10. We also note that this petition was filed on 11th July, 2022 i.e., within hardly a month from the notice of determination dated 24th June, 2022. Therefore, the period between the institution of this petition and today, shall stand excluded for the purposes of limitation. 11. The petition is disposed of in the above terms without any order for costs. 12. All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this order. (M. S. Sonak, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) 13th April, 2026 Sanjay/Rohit Uploaded on 15.04.2026