Representatives, Mr. Manish Chaturvedi, Having Its Registered v. For

: Mr. Aniruddha Das (Through Video Conferencing) with Mr. Naman Yadav For Respondent(s) : Mr. Daksh Pareek JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 11/09/2025

1. By way of filing this arbitration application, a prayer has been made for appointment of arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is a commercial relationship between the applicant and the respondent since last so many years during which the respondent has placed several purchase orders with the applicant for supply of various materials including High Carbon Ferro Chrome Lumps. Learned counsel submits that in the purchase order, an arbitration clause has been incorporated where it has been specifically mentioned [2025:RJ-JP:37094] (2 of 5) [ARBAP-101/2024] that in case any dispute occurs between the parties, the same shall be settled through arbitrator.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that when the dispute occurred between the parties, the applicant approached the Delhi High Court by way of filing an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short “the Act of 1996”) for appointment of arbitrator. Learned counsel submits that an objection was taken by the other side before the Delhi High Court with regard to the territorial jurisdiction arguing that no cause of action had arisen to file such application before the Delhi High Court. Learned counsel submits that reference of the clause mentioned in the purchase order, i.e., subject to Alwar jurisdiction was taken and on this count alone, the Delhi High Court has relegated the applicant with the remedy to approach this Court by way of filing application under Section 11(6) of the Act of 1996, hence, under these circumstances, the applicant has approached this Court by way of filing instant arbitration application.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the arguments raised by learned counsel for the applicant and submits that there exists no agreement between the parties. Learned counsel submits that the applicant cannot be allowed to approach this Court for seeking a prayer for appointment of arbitrator on the basis of a general clause mentioned in the purchase order. Learned counsel submits that such clause in the purchase order is a general clause and not a specific clause for settlement of dispute between the parties through arbitration. Learned counsel submits that as per the tax invoices issued by the applicant, the other [2025:RJ-JP:37094] (3 of 5) [ARBAP-101/2024] term has been mentioned “subject to Alwar jurisdiction”, hence, under these circumstances, this arbitration application is not maintainable and is liable to be rejected.

5. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record.

6. Perusal of the record indicates that there are business transactions between the parties for supply of certain goods and there is one clause mentioned in the purchase order, which deals with the arbitration and reads as under:- Arbitration : All disputes differences and question whatsoever which shall arise between the parties hereto at any time during the contract or contraction or application thereof or any clause or thing herein contained of the rights duties and liabilities of either party otherwise in connection therewith shall be referred to the arbitration. The decision of such arbitration shall be final and binding on both the parties, All such arbitration proceedings shall be held in Alwar and shall be in accordance with the subject to the previsions of the Indian Arbitration Act 1940 or any statutory modifications or re-enactment thereof for the time being in force.

7. Perusal of the aforesaid clause contained in the purchase order issued by the respondent clearly indicates the intention of the respondent for resolution of dispute between the parties through arbitrator that is why this clause has been mentioned in the purchase order.

8. When the dispute occurred between the parties, the applicant approached the Delhi High Court by way of filing Arbitration Application No.1237/2024 wherein an objection with regard to jurisdiction was taken on a technical count by the respondent stating that the dispute relates to Alwar jurisdiction [2025:RJ-JP:37094] (4 of 5) [ARBAP-101/2024] and on this count alone, the Delhi High Court has refused to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction to entertain the application submitted by the applicant. The application submitted by the applicant was not rejected on merits but the same was rejected on the ground of jurisdiction, hence, under these circumstances, the applicant has approached this Court by way of filing instant arbitration application.

9. This Court finds no valid substance in the argument raised by the counsel for the respondent that there is no agreement between the parties with regard to settlement of their dispute through arbitration. When the purchase order as issued by none other than the respondent itself contained the arbitration clause, the matter is required to be decided in terms of the said arbitration clause. Since the dispute occurred between the parties, the same is required to be referred to the arbitrator.

10. In view of the reasons stated above, this Court deems it just and proper to appoint Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq (Retd. Chief Justice) Resident of R/0-7, Bhagat Vatika, Civil Lines, Jaipur, as Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate/resolve the dispute between the parties.

11. The appointment of the Sole Arbitrator is subject of declaration being made under Section 12 of the Act of 1996 with respect to the independence and impartiality and ability to devote sufficient time to complete the arbitration proceedings within the prescribed period.

12. The arbitration fee of the Sole Arbitrator shall be payable in accordance with the provisions contained in the Manual of Procedure for Alternative Dispute Resolution, 2009 as amended by [2025:RJ-JP:37094] (5 of 5) [ARBAP-101/2024] the Manual of Procedure for Alternative Dispute Resolution (Amendment), 2017 vide notification dated 23.03.2017 read with 4th schedule appended to the Act of 1996 or as determined by the Arbitrator with consensus of parties.

13. The Registry is directed to intimate the Arbitrator- Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq (Retd. Chief Justice) Resident of R/0- 7, Bhagat Vatika, Civil Lines, Jaipur for his approval and declaration in terms of Section 11(8) read with Section 12(1) of the Act of 1996.

14. All issues raised by the parties before the Arbitrator shall be considered in accordance with law.

15. Since as per Section 29A of the Act of 1996, the arbitration proceedings are required to be concluded within the scheduled time as stipulated therein, it is expected from the parties to appear before the Arbitrator on 26.09.2025 or on any other date as informed by the Arbitrator subject to the agreement between the parties. Furthermore, the parties shall provide their respective E-mail/ contact number/ mobile number and/or also of their authorized representatives/ Lawyers appearing on their behalf before the Arbitration Tribunal, in order to facilitate the Arbitrator to send information/communication to the parties, whenever required. The information send by the Arbitrator, on such address/ E-mail/ cellphone of the parties or to their authorized representatives/ Lawyers, shall be treated as sufficient communication unless same is not changed.

16. Accordingly, the present arbitration application stands disposed of. Karan/221 (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J