1 2025:CGHC:32746 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 77 of 2025 Sanjay Kumar Gupta (Petitioner In Person) S/o B D Gupta Aged About 46 Years Current Resident F403 Raheja Residency Avanti Vihar Raipur Chhattisgarh 492001 Permanent Resident Gupta And Company Main Road Dalli-Rajhara Balod Chhattisgarh Email Sanboxe@Gmail.Com Mobile 9406409579 ... Petitioner versus 1. Chief Executive Officer (Presently Promoted To Director In Charge) Bhilai Steel Plant, Steel Authority Of India, Ispat Bhawan, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai District Durg Chhattisgarh 490021 Email Directoric.Bsp@Sail.In 2. General Manager (Mines IO And F) I.O.C. (Position Changed To Chief General Manager Mines) Rajhara Mines, Sail Bhilai Steel Plant, Dalli- Rajhara Balod Chhattisgarh 491228 Email Swarup.Samirr@Sail.In 3. Deputy General Manager Hirri Mines 5th Floor, Ispat Bhawan, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai District Durg Chhattisgarh 490021 4. The C.P.I.O. Steel Authority Of India Limited, Office Of The D.G.M. (Personal) Room No 250, 2nd Floor, Ispat Bhawan, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai District Durg Chhattisgarh 490021 Email Anuradhasingh@Sail.In ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Gupta, In person. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tanuj Patwardhan, Advocate. PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.07.17 20:42:03 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 14.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar Gupta, petitioner in person. Also heard Mr. Tanuj Patwardhan, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:- “3.1 The order judgement dated 12.11.2024 in ARBR 16/2024 be amended /modified as direction to respondent to pay admitted / proven payment aforementioned in point 2.3, 2.4 and 2.6. Honble Courts may presume that the destroyed document (contract) would have been unfavorable to the party that destroyed it. under Order XI Rule 21 of CPC the court might punish the respondents by not allowing them to defend, leading to an ex parte judgment as the evidence of work is destroyed, the court may presume against the party that destroyed it under Section 114 of the Evidence Act (adverse inference for spoliation of evidence), Petitioner seek costs for spoliation, Request compensation for the intentional destruction of evidence under Section 35A, CPC (compensatory costs). 3.2 And rest of the claim to be sent for arbitration if respondent having pure intention to conclude the dispute created by them and give their consent in according under law OR direction be issued to Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council under Section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (henceforth "MSMED Act, 2006") to be considered the claim of petitioner in absence of document mandatory to register the claim under MSMED Act, since such document has been destroyed by respondents without providing it to the petitioner. 3.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue order / direction in the nature of mandamus, Order or suitable Direction suitable to the facts established in this case and That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other ancillary relief by issuing any other suitable writ, direction or order, deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case including cost of appeal. 3 3. The notice issued to respondents No. 2 & 4 are served, and respondent No. 3 has refused to accept the notice. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner in person submits that respondent No. 3 has deliberately avoided the service of notice, as the address which has been mentioned in the present petition is the same as was in WPCR No. 484/2024 where he has put in his appearance. 5. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the present petition is dismissed as withdrawn, with a liberty to the petitioner to file a proper application with respect to the redressal of grievance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti