1 2025:CGHC:8390 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ARBR No. 19 of 2024 M/s Jai Jagdish Transport A Partnership Firm, Having Its OfÏce At, G-32, Hira Arcade, Pandri, Raipur, Chhattisgarh Through Its Partner, Shri Vivek Agrawal ... Applicant versus M/s Thanvi Associates Through Its Proprietor, Mr. K. Nageshwara Rao, Having Its OfÏce At, C-7, 2nd Floor, Pavan Enclave, Daba Gardens, Ward - 27, Vishakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. Ankit Singhal, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 18.02.2025 1. This is an application under Section 11(5) and (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an Arbitrator. 2. The facts, in brief, as projected by the applicant are that the applicant is a partnership firm, engaged in the business of transport, selling tyres as well as repairing of the vehicles. Further, the respondent being a proprietorship firm, approached the applicant to engage its services, i.e., to provide services of repairing the vehicles and to supply tyres to the respondent. The applicant rendered the services as requested by the respondent, however, PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI 2 the respondent failed to pay the outstanding dues on time. Thereafter, the applicant and the respondent entered into a Memorandum of Association dated 09.06.2021 whereby the respondent admitted its liability to pay outstanding dues amounting to Rs. 2,04,83,619/- to the applicant and in the said agreement, the This respondent undertook to repay the admitted dues in monthly installments of Rs. 15,00,000/- till the debt is satisfied in full. 3. Mr. Ankit Singhal, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the respondent failed to honour its obligations under the Memorandum of Understanding and defaulted in payment of its admitted dues, in its entirety. As such, the applicant was constrained to invoke arbitration clause under Clause 10 of the Memorandum of Understanding and sought consent of the respondent to the name of the sole arbitrator proposed by the applicant. Thereafter, the applicant sought a period of 4 weeks to give its consent, however, a period of 2 months has already passed and the respondent has failed to give its consent to the name of the sole arbitrator proposed by the Applicant. Hence, the present application. 4. Vide order dated 11.07.2024, this Court had directed for issuance of notice to the respondent. The matter was thereafter listed on 07.10.2024. On 04.11.2024, since it was found that the notice issued to the respondent was not served, the petitioner was permitted to serve notice through paper publication in two leading newspapers which had large circulation over the State of Andhra Pradesh. On 09.12.2024, it was submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that pursuant to the order passed by this Court paper publication was made, but despite that the respondent has chosen not to appear. This Court, as last opportunity to the respondent directed this matter to be listed in the third week of January, 2025. It was made clear that in case the respondent fails to appear on the said date, the Court would proceed with the matter on merits. Today, when the matter is being taken 3 up, none appears nor is any representation made of behalf of the respondent. 5. Since an afÏdavit has been filed in support of I.A. No. 1 of 2024 which is an application for taking paper publication on record, from perusal of the same, it is evident that paper publication has been made in two leading newspapers having wide circulation over the State of Andhra Pradesh where the OfÏce of the respondent is situated, it is presumed that service of notice is complete. Despite having being served, the respondent has not appeared nor is there any opposition to the arbitration request, and further having regard to the fact that Clause 10 of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 09.06.2021 provides for the mechanism for resolution of the dispute through arbitration, this Court deems it appropriate to appoint any retired District Judge as Arbitrator. 6. For ready reference Clause 10 of the MoU dated 09.06.2021 is quoted as under: "Dispute Resolution: That the in the event of any dispute, difference or claim, in between the parties hereunto in regard to these present or any matter connected thereto, shall be resolved by a sole arbitrator, who is to be appointed by second party and the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 shall apply and the award passed by the arbitrator shall be final and binding upon the parties. The venue for arbitration would be at Raipur, Chhattisgarh, India." 7. A query was put to learned counsel appearing for the applicant as to who may be appointed as Arbitrator for resolving the dispute existing between the parties, Mr. Sighal submits that Mr. Ganpat Rao, who is a retired District Judge may be appointed as Arbitrator. 8. In view of the above facts situation of the case, this Court deems it 4 appropriate to appoint Mr. Ganpat Rao, a retired District Judge to act as the Sole Arbitrator to resolve the dispute involved in this arbitration request between the parties. 9. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to Mr. Ganpat Rao in the proper address. 10. The remuneration of the Arbitrator shall be settled with the mutual consent of the parties. 11. The arbitration request petition, accordingly, stands allowed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Preeti