1 2025:CGHC:14129 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ARBR No. 1 of 2025 Alliance Construction A Proprietary Concern Having Its OfÏce And Place of Business At Jabakusum House, (2nd Floor), 34, Chittaranjan Avenue, Kolkata- 7000012 Represented By Shri Arindam Mukherjee, Sole Proprietor, S/o Late Manoranjan Mukherjee, Aged About 60 Years, R/o 37A, Ballygaunge Place, Kolkata 7000019 ... Applicant versus Atmastco Limited A Company Registered Under The Companies Act, 1956 Having Its Registered OfÏce Situate At 157-158, Light Industrial Area, Bhilai, Pin 490025, Dist. Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. Anal Kumar Ghosh along with Ms. Neelina Chhatterjee, Ms. Ahana Bhattarcharya, Ms. Rashika Soni and Mr. Aditya Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Y. Vijay, Mr. Aman Tamboli and D. Adeesh Giri, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 24.03.2025 1. This is an application under Sections 11 and 11(6A) 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 proprietary concern, M/s Arindam Mukherjee, based in Kolkata, West PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI 2 Bengal, and engaged in executing state-of-the-art civil projects across India. The respondent is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, with its registered ofÏce in Bhilai, Chhattisgarh, within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. On 04.03.2022, the respondent awarded a contract to the applicant for the execution of civil work for a 33 MVA SAF Project at FACOR, Odisha, through a Letter of Intent (LOI) dated 04.03.2022. This LOI was subsequently amended, fixing the contract value at Rs.12,07,37,500/- including GST. Further amendments were made, and the final contract value was revised to Rs.11,45,09,850/- as per the amendment dated 24.01.2023. The project was to be completed by 30.04.2023, and the LOI included provisions for defect liability and liquidated damages. Upon receiving the contract, the applicant promptly set up its site ofÏce and commenced work. Despite substantial efforts, the applicant faced significant impediments due to the respondent's failure to fulfill various conditions precedent, including delays in approvals, non-certification of bills, and delayed payments. These defaults adversely impacted the project timeline. Notwithstanding these challenges, the applicant achieved substantial progress, completing over 99% of the work by April 2023. The total value of work certified as of April 2023 stood at Rs.14,69,35,373/-, out of which Rs.11,13,54,819.35 was paid, leaving an outstanding amount of Rs.3,44,81,723.65. After adjusting a mobilization advance of Rs.1,20,00,000/-, the net payable amount is Rs.2,24,81,723.65. Further, discrepancies in TDS deductions and deposits led to an additional claim of Rs.2,29,514/-. Including the security deposit, the applicant claims a total of Rs. 2,27,11,237.65. 3. They further submits that the respondent committed various breaches, including non-return of machinery deployed at the site, delays in bill certification, and wrongful termination of the contract. These breaches 3 caused the applicant to suffer damages amounting to Rs.8,28,39,035.64, along with additional losses due to delayed completion of the project. The applicant served legal notices dated 11.09.2023 and 26.09.2023, claiming a cumulative amount of 10.67 crores, but the respondent, through its reply dated 10.10.2023, denied the claims and threatened termination of the contract. The applicant refuted these allegations through a rejoinder dated 31.10.2023 and subsequently issued a notice under Section 21 of the Act on 21.10.2024, invoking the arbitration clause as provided in Clause 22.0 of the LOI. Despite the applicant’s efforts, no amicable settlement was reached, and the respondent failed to initiate conciliation proceedings or respond to the arbitration notice. The applicant, being registered under the MSMED Act, 2006, had also approached the West Bengal Micro Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (WBMSEFC), but later withdrew the application to pursue arbitration as the agreed dispute resolution mechanism. Clause 22.0 of the LOI provides for arbitration in accordance with the Act, with the seat of arbitration being Durg, Chhattisgarh. Over 30 days have elapsed since the notice was served, and the respondent has neither appointed an arbitrator nor engaged in conciliation, warranting the intervention of this Hon'ble Court. The applicant respectfully submits that this Hon'ble Court has jurisdiction to entertain the application as the respondent's registered ofÏce and the arbitration seat are located within its territorial jurisdiction. Therefore, the applicant prays for the appointment of an independent and impartial arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes. 4. Mr. Y. Vijay, Mr. Aman Tamboli and D. Adeesh Giri, learned counsel appearing for the respondent opposes this arbitration request application, however, they submits that the respondent will have no objection if any Arbitrator is appointed by this Hon’ble Court for resolving the dispute that has arisen between the parties. 4 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. 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 Judge of this High Court is appointed as the Sole Arbitrator. They further submit that Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.K.Agrawal who is a retired Judge of this High Court may be appointed as the Sole Arbitrator. 7. In view of the above consensus between the learned counsel for the parties, Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.K.Agrawal retired Judge of this High Court is appointed to act as the Sole Arbitrator to resolve the dispute involved in this arbitration request between the parties. 8. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.K.Agrawal in the proper address. 9. The remuneration of the Arbitrator shall be settled with the mutual consent of the parties. 10. The arbitration request petition, accordingly, stands allowed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Preeti