Patna High Court
Lord Vishnu Construction Private ... vs The Union Of India Through The General ... on 13 October, 2025
Author: P. B. Bajanthri
Bench: P. B. Bajanthri
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
REQUEST CASE No.21 of 2025
======================================================
Lord Vishnu Construction Private Limited having its registered office at
102A, Lotus Apartment, New Patliputra Colony, Patna (Bihar), Pin-800013
through its Director/Authorised representative Ramakant Singh, aged about-
71 years, Gender- Male, Son of Late Ram Khelawan Singh, Resident of New
Godown, Maharani Road, P.S.- Kotwali, District and Town- Gaya.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Union of India through the General Manager, East Central Railway
having its office at Mahendru Ghat, 1st Floor, Patna-800004.
2. The Sr. DEN-II (Senior Divisional Engineer- II), East Central Railway,
DRM Building, 2nd Floor, Pt. Dindayal Upadhyay Nagar, District-
Chandauli, Uttar Pradesh, Pin- 232101.
3. The Divisional Engineer (DEN)/HQ, East Central Railway, DRM Building,
2nd Floor, Pt. Dindayal Upadhyay, Nagar, District- Chandauli, Uttar
Pradesh, Pin- 232101.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Lal Babu Singh, Advocate
Mr. Nilesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Additional Solicitor General
Mr. Anshay Bahadur Mathur, CGC
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 13-10-2025
The present application is filed under Section 11 (6) of
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to
as 'the Act, 1996') seeking appointment of Arbitrator to adjudicate
the disputes that have arisen among the parties under the
agreement dated 14.02.2022.
2. Brief facts of the case is that the petitioner and
respondents entered into an agreement / contract on 14.02.2022.
Patna High Court REQ. CASE No.21 of 2025 dt.13-10-2025
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.
"
3. Dispute arises among the parties in respect of
partnership. The petitioner vide its letter dated 01.05.2024,
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. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the arbitration agreement exists and is valid, but the respondents
have failed to co-operate in appointment of Arbitrator.
Patna High Court REQ. CASE No.21 of 2025 dt.13-10-2025
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.
5. Perusal of the agreement, 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
Patna High Court REQ. CASE No.21 of 2025 dt.13-10-2025
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). The present case is accordingly allowed in the
above terms.
6. No order as to costs.
7. Registry is hereby directed to communicate the order
to the learned Arbitrator.
(P. B. Bajanthri, CJ)
GAURAV S./-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date 15.10.2025
Transmission Date
