( 2026: JHHC:7819 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Arbitration Application No. 9 of 2026 Rodic Consultants Pvt. Ltd., a company, having its Registered Office at AIWC Building, 1st Floor, Sarojini House, 6 Bhagwan Das Road, New Delhi-110001 through its Assistant Vice President Birendra Kumar Jha, S/o Bhogendra Jha, resident of Plot No. 304-C, Road No. 1A, Ashok Nagar, P.O. and P.S. Argora, District Ranchi ... ... Applicant Versus 1. Jharkhand Urban Infrastructure Development Company Limited (JUIDCO), a company owned by Government of Jharkhand, through its Chief Executive Officer (CEO), which is the Principal Secretary, Urban Development & Housing Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, having its registered office Principal Secretary, Room No. 411, Urban Development Department, Project Building, P.O & P.S. Dhurwa, Ranchi, 834004 2. Project Director (Technical), Jharkhand Urban Infrastructure Development Company Limited (JUIDCO Ltd.) having its office JUIDCO Building, Line Tank Road, Kutchery Chowk, P.O. G.P.O, P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi, Jharkhand 834001 … … ... Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE --------- For the Applicant: Mr. D.K. Chakraborty, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Krishna Murari, Advocate Mr. Raj Vardhan, Advocate Mr. Ritesh Kumar Pathak, Advocate --------- 03/Dated: 20.03.2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This application seeks appointment of arbitrator by invoking section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Said Act). 3. Clause 16 of the Agreement between the parties refers to an arbitration clause. Therefore, the existence of arbitration clause cannot be disputed and in fact, is not disputed. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the necessary representation / request letters were made for resolution of the dispute and ( 2026: JHHC:7819 ) therefore, at this stage, the provision of Clause 16.2 of the Agreement would not apply. 5. However, Mr. Krishna Murari, learned counsel for the respondents, submits that Clause 15 of the Agreement provides for a detailed procedure of dispute resolution, which, according to him, has not been adhered to. Further, he refers to Clause 16.2 to submit that the Arbitrator is to be appointed through Jharkhand Legal Services Authority (JHALSA) in the first instance. 6. The scope of the proceedings under section 11 of the said Act is quite minimum, given the various decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court including the decisions in ‘Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and Stamp Act, 1899 In Re’1 and SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Krish Spinning2. This scope extends to examining, whether or not there exist an arbitration agreement between the parties. 7. Since in this case, the existence of arbitration agreement cannot be and is not disputed, a case is made out for appointment of an Arbitrator and no doubt, by leaving open all the contentions of the respondents including the issue of maintainability. 8. Learned counsel for the parties submit that Mr. Justice Tapen Sen, retired Judge of the Calcutta High Court, could be appointed as the Arbitrator. Accordingly, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tapen Sen is appointed as the arbitrator to arbitrate the disputes between the parties. 1 (2024) 6 SCC 1 2 (2024) 12 SCC 1 ( 2026: JHHC:7819 ) 9. As noted earlier, all contentions including the objections as to the maintainability are left open to be decided by the learned Arbitrator. 10. Learned Arbitrator’s fees, etc. shall be in terms of the 4th Schedule to the said Act and the same shall be shared equally by the parties. 11. This application 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.) March 20, 2026 N.A.F.R. Ranjeet/R.Kr./Cp.2 Uploaded on