1 2025:CGHC:49118 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MA No. 661 of 2005 1 - Suresh C. Mirchandani, S/o Late Shree Chhabal Das, aged about 66 years, Contractor and Entineer, Sweet Home, 48 Idgah Hills, Ridge Road, Bhopal (M.P.) ... Appellant versus 1 – South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Head Quarter Seepat Road, Bilaspur through Chief General Manager, Hasdeo Area, SECL, Manendragarh, District Korea (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Aman Ansari, Advocate appears on behalf of Ms. Meera Ansari, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Vinod Kumar Deshmukh, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board 25/09/2025 1. This Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (henceforth “the Act, 1996”) PRIYANKA VERMA Digitally signed by PRIYANKA VERMA Date: 2025.09.26 15:03:10 +0530 2 arising out of the order dated 16.03.2005 passed by the District Judge, Bilaspur in MJC No.73/2002, whereby the application filed by the respondent under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 has been allowed and the award passed by Sole Arbitrator- Shri B.B. Lal, Chief Engineer (Civil), CCL, Ranchi dated 12.03.2002, has been set aside. 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the parties submits that a similar issue came up before this Court in the matter of Suresh C. Mirchandani vs. South Eastern Coal Fields Limited (order dated 22.10.2024 passed in M.A. No.699/2005), wherein the Sole Arbitrator has acted as per the mandate of the appointment and as per Clause-9 of the agreement, which empowers the Chairman-cum-Managing Director to appoint an Arbitrator. In the agreement, there was no such clause that after the transfer, such mandate has to be terminated. In the above case, this Court placed reliance on the judgments rendered in the matter of M/s Laxmi Continental Construction Co. vs. State of UP & Anr1 as also in the matter of M/s. Construction India vs. Secretary, Works, Department, Government of Orissa & Ors2, wherein the law has been held that unless there is clear intention spelt out in the agreement of reference to indicate that he would continue to be an Arbitrator only so long as he holds a particular office, a mere reference to the office held by the Arbitrator will not disqualify him from being an Arbitrator after he ceases to hold that office; the Arbitrator, therefore, had jurisdiction to give the award and only on such ground, set-aside the award. 1 (2021) 13 SCC 142 2 (1998) 2 SCC 89 3 3. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties as also considering that the similar issue has already been decided by this Court in the matter of Suresh C. Mirchandani (supra), this Court is of the view that the learned District Judge has committed an error in setting aside the arbitration award only on such score. 4. It is pertinent to mention here that out of the total claim amount of Rs.10,98,965/- in respect of Claims No.1 to 10, the Arbitrator has allowed the claim amount of Rs.2,43,827/- along with simple interest @ 18% per annum. 5. At this juncture, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the interest has been awarded on the higher side. 6. In view of the above, this Court deems it appropriate to reduce the interest rate to 12% simple interest instead of 18% on allowed claim amount of Rs.2,43,827/- as determined by the Sole Arbitrator. Ordered accordingly. 7. It is directed that the net claim amount allowed by the Sole Arbitrator i.e. Rs.2,43,827/- and interest on this amount @ 12% simple shall be reckoned from the date of the reference of the arbitration i.e. 23.12.1997. 8. Accordingly, the Appeal is allowed to the extent indicated here-in-above. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Priyanka