1 2025:CGHC:6114 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ARBR No. 34 of 2024 • Himcon Estate And Developers Ltd. Engineer And Contractors, Through Shri Manish Jain, Managing Director, B-504, Palm Ballagio, Near Smc Hospital, Shankar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.), 492014 ... Applicant versus 1. Shri Rawatpura Sarkar Institute Of Medical Science And Research (SRIMSR) Through (1). Shri Atul Kumar Tewari, Director (SRIMSR), S/o Late Shri K.C Tewari, OfÏce At Vill. Pacheda, P.O. Kurru, Tehsil Abhanpur, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) - 493661 2. Shri Anil Pandey Project Manager (SRIMSR), OfÏce At, Village - Pacheda, P.O. Kurru, Tehsil - Abhanpur, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) - 493661 ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Brajendra Singh, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bhaskar Payashi and Ms. Sangeeta Mishra, Advocates. Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 03.02.2025 1. This is an application under Section 11(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 Claimant PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.02.05 19:51:28 +0530 2 Himcon Estate and Developers Pvt. Ltd. is a company registered in New Delhi and has a branch ofÏce at Raipur (C.G.) at B-504, Palm Ballagio, Near SMC Hospital, Shankar Nagar Raipur (C.G.) and is engaged in Civil Contracts both of Government and Non-government organizations. The respondent Shri Rawatpura Sarkar Institute of Medical Sciences and Research (SRIMSR) is run by Shri Rawatpura Sarkar Lok Kalyan Trust, which is a social service NGO with its' branch ofÏce at Village -Pacheda, P.O. Kurru, Tehsil Abhanpur, Atal nagar, Nava Raipur, Dist. Ralpur (C.G.). Whereas the respondent was desirous of opening and running an Institute of Medical Sciences and Research at Nava Raipur (C.G.) to cater the need of medical and research facilities in the State of Chhattisgarh, so they got prepared drawings and specifications by HPM architects Ahmadabad (Gujrat) for construction of the building and other Civil works for their Medical Institute at Nava Raipur. 3. Mr. Brajendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the respondent selected the applicant/ Claimant as Contractor for execution of the above mentioned building and other Civil work for their Institute and a contract agreement was signed by both the parties in this respect on 29-09- 2022. The time for completion of work was scheduled as eight months from the date of written order to commence the work. The Claimant immediately mobilized it's resources in respect of men, machinery, material and money commensurate to the size and pace of work and started execution of contract with full zeal. However, the respondent did not follow the payment schedule as designed by themselves and agreed by both the parties, which has obstructed the smooth cash flow in the contract and caused financial crisis in this contract. Several correspondence made by the Claimant either by email or by post or person for timely payment and to refrain from un-contractual actions of the respondents. The respondents also made several correspondence, but did not resolve the issues between the parties. 3 This is specifically alleged by the applicant that the respondents miserably failed to adhere with the provisions of payment as prescribed in condition No. 14 Payment of the General Conditions of the agreement dated 29-09-2022. The respondents during the execution period of this contract awarded for execution of additional work through work order nos. SNo./SRIMSR/DIR/2023/1424 dated 09-08-2023 and Sno./SRIMSR/ DIR/2023/2453 dated 22-12-2023 respectively, which were also completed by the Claimant, however, such work consumed considerable time in completion during the execution of the main contract. The respondent in most un-contractual and unlawful manner stopped the equipments of the Claimant, whose work had completed in this project and were needed to be shifted to some other project. Finally, the applicant served a notice to refer the matters of dispute and differences to Arbitration as per Clause 42 of the General Conditions of the agreement dated 29-09-2022 through their letter dated 11-08-2024 (a) by Speed post and also (b) by email. Since no action for appointment of arbitrator has been taken by the respondent till date, hence this application under Section 11(6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 as amended up to date. 4. Clause 42 of the 'General Conditions' of the agreement constitutes Arbitration Clause, which is reproduced here under:- In the event that any dispute between the parties arise out of or related to the provisions of the agreement, either party may give notice to the other party of it's intention to submit the issue specified in the notice to arbitration. If the issues are not amicably resolved between the parties within 30 days of the issuance of arbitration. The arbitration shall be held in accordance with the arbitration rules of the arbitration and conciliation act 1996 by a sole arbitrator to be appointed by the employer. The venue of arbitration shall be Raipur and the language of arbitration shall 4 either be Hindi or English. The award shall be final and binding between the parties." 5. Mr. Bhaskar Payashi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents relying on the return filed on behalf of respondents, opposes this application, however, he submits that the respondents will have no objection if any Arbitrator is appointed by this Hon’ble Court for resolving the dispute that has arisen between the parties. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. 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 V.K. Shrivastava, who is a retired Judge of this High Court may be appointed as the Sole Arbitrator. 8. In view of the above consensus between the learned counsel for the parties, Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Shrivastava a 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. 9. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Shrivastava 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