Justice Raj Mohan Singh, former Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court appointed as arbitrator: Chief Justice Bajanthri

In Lord Vishnu Construction Private Limited, Patna Through Ramakant Singh vs. The Union of India through the General Manager, East Central Railway, Patna & Ors. (2025), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Chief Justice P.  B. Bajanthri and Justice Alok Kumar Sinha delivered a 4-long judgement dated October 13, 2025, wherein, Justice Raj Mohan Singh, former Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has been appointed as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute among the parties. The judgement in this Request Case No.21 of 2025 was authored by the Chief Justice Bajanthri. 

The application was filed under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes that arose among the parties under the agreement dated February 14, 2022. The case was that the petitioner and respondents entered into an agreement/contract on February 14, 2022. The agreement contains an Arbitration Clause namely Clause 64(1)(i) which reads as under :
“64 (1) (i) : In the event of any dispute or difference between the parties hereto as to the construction or operation of this contract, or the respective rights and liabilities of the parties on any matter in question, dispute or difference on any account or as to the withholding by the Railway of any certificate to which the Contractor may claim to be entitled to, or if the Railway fails to make a decision within 120 days, then and in any such case, but except in any of the “excepted matters” referred to in Clause 63.1 of these Conditions, the Contractor, after 120 days but within 180 days of his presenting his final claim on disputed matters shall demand in writing that the dispute or difference be referred to arbitration.” 

Dispute arose among the parties in respect of partnership. The petitioner vide its letter dated May 1, 2024, invoked the dispute resolution mechanism and formally requested that the matter be referred for adjudication through arbitration proceedings, the respondents have failed to act in terms of the arbitration Clause. 

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the arbitration agreement exists and is valid, but the respondents have failed to co-operate in appointment of Arbitrator. 

Chief Justice Bajanthri observed: ''4. Considering the fact that whether valid arbitration agreement among the parties and whether disputes have arisen thereon warranting reference to arbitration, it is admitted that there is agreement and so also valid Clause 64(1)(i) and it relates to arbitration and it is binding among the respective parties. Disputes have admittedly arisen among the parties. The respondents have failed to act as required for constitution of arbitral tribunal. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Duro Felguera, S.A. vs. Gangavaram Port Limited reported in (2017) 9 SCC 729 and Mayavati Trading Private Limited vs. Praduyat Deb Burman reported in (2019) 8 SCC 714, the Court, at this stage, is only required to examine the existence of the arbitration agreement and nothing beyond.''

He added: ''....it is evident that Clause 64(1)(i) is crystal clear that there is Arbitration Clause existing. Accordingly, this court is satisfied with the requirement of Section 11 of the Act, 1996 and petitioner has made out a case, therefore, this Court appoints Hon’ble Mr. Justice Raj Mohan Singh, Resident of House No. 283, Section 21-A, Chandigarh, Mobile No. 8558809931, former Judge of the Chandigarh High Court and Madhya Pradesh High Court as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute among the parties. The Learned Arbitrator shall make disclosure under Section 12 of the Act, 1996 before entering upon the reference. Fees of the Arbitrator shall be governed by the Fourth Schedule of the Act, 1996 (unless otherwise agreed by the parties / arbitrator)....7. Registry is hereby directed to communicate the order to the learned Arbitrator.'' The case was allowed.