1 2025:CGHC:14098 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ARBR No. 15 of 2025 Capital Transformers Private Limited Through Shri B.K. Goyal S/o Late Shri Jangumal Goayl Aged About 56 Years Director Of Petitioner Company Having Its Registered OfÏce At B-40 Jhilmil Industrial Area Gt Road, Shahdara, Delhi 110095 ... Applicant versus Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Power Company Limited Through Its Managing Director Having Its Registered OfÏce At Vidyut Sewa Bhawan, 4th Floor, Daganiya, Raipur 492013 (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. K.R. Nair, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 24.03.2025 1. This is an application under Section 11 (5) and (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Act of 1996) for appointment of an Arbitrator. 2. The facts, in brief, as projected by the applicant are that applicant is a Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business of manufacturing and repairing PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI 2 Transformers. Disputes arose between the applicant and respondent when the respondent deducted liquidated damages from the payment to be made to the applicant and after invoking arbitration clause, nominated their Arbitrator and thereafter the respondent also nominated their Arbitrator. However, the two Arbitrators did not appoint an Umpire/Presiding Arbitrator. On account of the two Arbitrators failing to proceed and appoint an Umpire, the petitioner filed before this Court a petition under Section 11(6) of the Act of 1996, being ARBR-03/2018. A learned Single Judge of this Court, vide judgment dated 11.04.2019 appointed Mr. Justice Vijay Kumar Shrivastava, a retired Judge of this High Court, as the Sole Arbitrator who wide his award dated 08.10.2022, dismissed the claim of the applicant. The applicant challenged the said award before the learned Commercial Court, Raipur in Arb. MJC No. 5/2023, which stood allowed vide judgment dated 25.09.2023 and it was observed that the applicant cannot be penalised for any delay in supply of the transformers and no amount can be deducted from the bills of the applicant. The learned Commercial Court further observed that the findings returned by the learned Arbitrator holding that claimant to be responsible for delay was found to be based on no evidence at all and was perverse and liable to be set aside on the ground of patent illegality in light of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd. v. NHAI {(2019) 15 SCC 131}. 3. Mr. Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant, through his counsel sent the said judgment dated 25.09.2023 to the learned Sole Arbitrator with a prayer that the matter be heard afresh as the award had been set aside. However, the learned Sole Arbitrator has not directed the parties to appear and hear the matter afresh and thus the matter has not reached its rightful conclusion. The parties have already adduced their evidence and after setting aside of the award passed by the Sole Arbitrator, 3 now fresh award has to be passed which is not being done by the present Arbitrator. In the above facts and circumstances, the applicant is left with no alternative but to approach this Hon'ble Court seeking appointment of Sole Arbitrator to finally hear the matter afresh. 4. Mr. K.R. Nair, learned counsel appearing for the respondent fairly admits that the applicant has no other recourse except to pray for appointment of Sole Arbitrator who may pass the final award. He further submits that the respondent would have no objection if this Court appoints any Arbitrator for hearing the matter. 5. A query was put to learned counsel appearing for the parties as to whether they are agreeable for a common name who can be appointed as Arbitrator, learned counsel for the parties submitted that they would have no objection if any retired District Judge is appointed as the Sole Arbitrator. They further submit that Mr. Ashok Kumar Panda, who is a retired District Judge may be appointed as sole Arbitrator. 6. In view of the above consensus between the learned counsel for the parties, Mr. Ashok Kumar Panda retired District Judge is appointed to act as the sole Arbitrator to resolve the dispute involved in this arbitration request between the parties. 7. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to Mr. Ashok Kumar Panda in the proper address. 8. The remuneration of the Arbitrator shall be settled with the mutual consent of the parties. 9. The arbitration request petition, accordingly, stands allowed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Preeti / Amit