" 2026:JHHC:7856 -1 of 3- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Arbitration Application No. 12 of 2026 M/s. T & T Projects Limited, a Company registered under the Provision of Companies Act, 2013 and having its registered office at T-3, Parmeswari Building, Chatribari Road, Guwahati 781001 and its Corporate office at 304 &305 Sikkim Commerce House, 4/1, Middleton Street, Kolkata- 700071 P.O- Russel Street, P.S. Hastings through Manas Kumar Mondal aged about 64 years Executive Director/ Authorized representative of the petitioner company, working for loan at 4/1 Middleton Street, Kolkata ... ... Petitioner -Versus- Central Coalfields Limited represented through its General Manager (E & M), Darbhanga House, Ranchi, Jharkhand 834 001, E-mail: gmenm.ccl@coalindia.in, P.O - Darbhanga House; P.S-Sadar District- Ranchi ... Respondent --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE --------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Harsh Preet Singh, Advocate For the Respondent: Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate Mr. Rajesh Lala, Advocate --------- 02 /Dated: 20.03.2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This is an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the said Act) seeking appointment of an Arbitrator to arbitrate into the disputes that have arisen between the parties. 3. The disputes concern the agreement dated 19.10.2022. Clause 42A of the contract/agreement contains an arbitration clause. The existence of the arbitration clause, therefore, can neither be disputed nor disputed by Mr Amit Kumar Das, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 4. Mr Amit Kumar Das, however, submitted that this is not a fit case for appointing an Arbitrator, as the applicant has already instituted Title Printed from counselvise.com 2026:JHHC:7856 -2 of 3- Suit No. 86 of 2025 before the City Civil Court at Calcutta. He submitted that it is not open to the applicant to seek two remedies simultaneously. He further submitted that the applicant, by instituting such a suit, has waived its rights under Clause 42A of the agreement/contract. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Title Suit referred to above was mainly against the State Bank of India, to which the present respondent was impleaded as a proper party. He therefore submits that there can be no bar to the invocation of the arbitration clause, as suggested by the learned counsel for the respondent. 6. The scope of proceedings under Section 11 of the Act is extremely limited, as held in SBI General Insurance Company Limited Vs Krish Spinning, (2024) 12 SCC 1. 7. In this case, since the existence of the arbitration clause is not disputed, a case has been made out for the appointment of the Arbitrator, no doubt, by keeping all contentions and objections raised on behalf of the respondent, or that may be raised on behalf of the respondent in future, open. However, based on the objections now raised, the very appointment of the Arbitrator cannot be resisted. 8. Accordingly, Hon’ble Mr Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary, Former Judge of this Court, residing at Flat No. 301, Nirvana Apartment, Morabadi, Ranchi - 834008, is appointed as an Arbitrator to arbitrate in the disputes between the parties. His fees shall be in accordance with the Fourth Schedule to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. They shall be equally borne by both parties. 9. All contentions of all parties on merits, maintainability, etc., including those now raised by Mr Amit Kumar Das on behalf of the Printed from counselvise.com 2026:JHHC:7856 -3 of 3- respondent, are explicitly left open to be decided by the learned Arbitrator in the first instance. 10. Learned Arbitrator should endeavour to conclude the proceedings expeditiously by having regard to the mandate of the Legislature under Section 29-A of the said Act. 11. This Arbitration Application is disposed of in the above terms without any order for costs. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. (M.S. Sonak, C.J.) 20.03.2026 N.A.F.R. APK/VK Uploaded on 23.03.2026 Printed from counselvise.com "