[2026:RJ-JP:24858] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Arbitration Application No. 134/2023 URN: ARBAP / 181U / 2023 M/s K.B. Enterprises, Through Its Partner Shri KUL Bhushan Agarwal, S/o Late Shri Natha Ram Agarwal, Aged About 64 Years Having Its Registered Office At Plot No.2, Matra Chaya, Opposite Chambal Power House, Hawa Sadak, Jaipur- 302006, Rajasthan And Branch Office At 2nd Floor, Opposite SBI Bazar Branch, Dhobinala Junction, Dimapur- 797112, Nagaland. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Represented By General Manager, Northwest Railway, Jagatpura Road, Near Jawahar Circle, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur- 302017. 2. The Divisional Rail Manager/ Engineer, DRM Office, Northwestern Railway, Ajmer- 305001, Rajasthan. 3. The Senior DEN/CO/ALL, DRM Office, Northwestern Railway, Ajmer- 305001, Rajasthan ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Arbitration Application No. 25/2024 URN: ARBAP / 30U / 2024 M/s Jandu Construction India Private Limited, Having Its Office At House No 323 Aggrasain Colony, SBI Street, Sirsa Haryana- 125055, Through Its Authorized Signatory Mr. Jaswant Singh S/o Sh. Nar Singh. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, through General Manager, West Central Railway, WCR Headquarter, South Civil Lines, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh-482004. 2. Dy. Chief Engineer (Const-II), West Central Railway, Kota, Rajasthan-324002. ----Respondents S.B. Arbitration Application No. 39/2024 URN: ARBAP / 47U / 2024 M/s Detection Instruments (India) Private Limited, Having Its [2026:RJ-JP:24858] (2 of 3) [ARBAP-134/2023] Office At- EL-36, Electronics Zone, TTC Indi. Area, MIDC Mahape, Navi Mumbai-400710 Through Its Authorized Signatory Mr. Amit Satra. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through General Manager, North Western Railway, NWR Head Quarter, Near Jawahar Circle, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur-302017. 2. Divisional Rail Manager (S & T), Ajmer Division, North Western Railway, DRM Office, Ajmer. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Akshay Dutt Sharma Ms. Anita Goyal with Mr. Naman Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Pathak with Ms. Shefali Sharma and Mr. Aditya Vyas Mr. Devesh Yadav, through VC HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA Order 03/07/2026 1. A dispute has arisen between the parties with respect to the agreement entered into amongst them, which reflects that both the parties had agreed to get their dispute resolved through an Arbitrator, who is to be appointed under the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the Act of 1996’). For appointment of Arbitrator, the present application has come before this Court. 2. In the case of M/s Devender Singh Contractor Vs. Union of India: D.B. Civil Reference No.1/2024, this Court held as under: "It is not in dispute between the parties that there exist an arbitration clause. The arbitration clause is an independent [2026:RJ-JP:24858] (3 of 3) [ARBAP-134/2023] 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 of 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 Section 16 of the Act." 3. We have also decided the distinction of disputes at the level of agreement would not be valid condition, as once there is an arbitration clause, the kinds of disputes which may arise will have to be decided by the arbitrator alone. This Court deems it appropriate to appoint Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish Kumar Sharma, (Former Judge Rajasthan High Court), R/o 1- Rail Nagar East, Bhagwan Path, Nirwan Nagar Ke Pas Jaipur, to act as the Sole Arbitrator and to decide all issues without prejudice to the rights and contentions raised in the present application. 4. The arbitration fees shall be determined in accordance with the Fourth Schedule of the Act of 1996, as amended. The fee of the Arbitrator will be equally borne by both the parties. 5. The arbitration application is allowed accordingly. 6. Copy of this order is to be sent to the appointed Sole Arbitrator. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ Gaurav/Diksha/24-26