Rajasthan Micro & Small Enterprises Facilitation Council & Anr. Date of order: 20/11/2015. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJIT SINGH, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL Mr.P.C. Sharma for the appellants. Mr.Arpit Srivastava for respondent No.1. Mr.Ajay Gupta for respondent No.2. ***** BY THE COURT: This intracourt appeal is directed against the order dated 03/03/2015 passed by the learned Single Judge of this High Court whereby, he has dismissed the appellants' S.B. Respondent No.2 has filed an application before the Rajasthan Micro & Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (in short, the Council) for recovery of Rs.47,094/ against the appellants. On the other hand, appellants have claimed that as per accounts office of NorthWestern Railway, payment of Rs.79,869/ is outstanding against respondent No.2. This application of respondent No.2 for recovery is pending before the Council. Aggrieved, the appellants rushed to the High Court by filing S.B. The learned Single Judge relying upon the decisions of Supreme Court in Registrar, Cooperative Society Vs. Krishan Kumar Singhania : (1995) 6 SCC 482 and Punjab Electricity Board Vs. Guru Nanak Cold Storage : (1996) 5 SCC 411, has held that Council has the jurisdiction to decide the claim of respondent. Now also, by the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015, subSection (5) of Section 12 of the principal Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been inserted. It reads, as under: 12(5) Notwithstanding any prior agreement to the contrary, any person whose relationship, with the parties or counsel or the subject matter of the dispute, falls under any of the categories specified in the Seventh Schedule shall be ineligible to be appointed as an arbitrator. And clause 1 of the Seventh Schedule referred to in Section 12(5) is, as under: Arbitrator's relationship with the parties or counsel 1. The arbitrator is an employee, consultant, advisor or has any other past or present business relationship with a party. A bare reading of the above quoted amendment incorporated in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, makes it clear that notwithstanding any prior agreement to the contrary, any person whose relationship, with the parties or counsel or the subject matter of the dispute, falls under any of the categories specified in the Seventh Schedule shall be ineligible to be appointed as an arbitrator. Also, the 'arbitrator' means an employee, consultant, advisor or has any other past or present business relationship with the party. In the case at hand, as per clause 63 of the contract executed between the appellants and respondent No.2, all disputes and differences of any kind whatsoever arising out of or in connection with the contract, is required to be referred by the latter to the railway and the railway shall within 120 days after receipt of such representation, must make a notified decision on all matters referred to in writing. But, with the changed legal position due to insertion of new Section 12(5) in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, an officer or employee of appellantsRailway has become ineligible to be appointed as arbitrator. The appellants thus cannot insist respondent No.2 to avail the remedy of Arbitration through their Arbitrator as mentioned in the contract agreement. The appeal has no merit and is accordingly dismissed. (Anupinder Singh Grewal), J (Ajit Singh), Acting C.J. Anil All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed. Anil GoyalPS