1 2025:CGHC:2041 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ARBR No. 7 of 2024 M/s Tata Projects Limited A Company Incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, Having its Registered OfÏce At Floor 2, 3 And 4 Transocean House, Lake Boulevard Road, Hiranandani Business Park, Powai, Mumbai -400 076, Represented By Assistant General Manager - Legal, Sh. Rahul Jadwani, S/o Late Sh. S.L. Jadwani. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Represented Through Its Director General of Police, Police Headquarters, Chhattisgarh Sector -19, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 13.01.2025 1. This is an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an Arbitrator. 2. The applicant has prayed for the following relief(s): “ (a) To appoint a sole-arbitrator as per the provisions of Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for adjudication of all the claims of the applicant against the respondent and to decide all the disputes and differences between the applicant and the respondent arising out of or in connection with the connection with the Contract Agreement PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.01.17 11:25:10 +0530 2 dated 07.03.2018 between the applicant and the respondent; (b) Provide for costs for this Application in favour of the Petitioner; (c) pass any such other order as this Hon’ble may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case and in the interest of justice” 3. The applicant is a company having expertise in executing large and complex urban and industrial infrastructure projects. It is also engaged in providing ready to deploy solutions for refineries, roads, bridges, integrated rail and metro systems, commercial building and airports, and power generation, transmission and distribution systems, chemical process plants, water and waste management and mining and metal purification systems. The respondent issued a Request for Proposal for selection of a suitable implementation agency / system integrator for Chhattisgarh State Dial 112 Emergency response system. The applicant and the respondent entered into an agreement on 07.03.2018 for a period of 5 years. Upon evaluation of the tenders, the bid of the applicant was found acceptable to the respondent. Consequently, the respondent had, vide letter dated 26.02.2018, issued letter of award to the applicant for the execution of the works. Subsequently, a Master Services Agreement was executed between the parties. During the execution of the works, the respondent did not fulfil its obligations under the agreement as a result certain dispute had arisen between the parties. The applicant invoked Clause 25 "Governing Law and Dispute Resolution" of the agreement for the resolution of the disputes. In terms of Clause 25 of the Agreement, parties attempted to resolve the disputes amicably through mutual consultations and discussions, which were not resolved amicably between the parties. As such, the applicant referred to the disputes for resolution through arbitration and invoked the arbitration clause and requested the respondent to select one from the three 3 names suggested by the applicant as sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. However, the respondent neither conveyed its any selection of the arbitrator nor responded to the afore-noted request of the applicant. 4. Mr. Deshmukh, learned counsel for the applicant submits that in view of the forgoing compelling circumstances, there was no effective remedy to the applicant except approaching this Court for appointment of independent Sole Arbitrator under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Accordingly, the applicant had filed an application being Arbitration Request No. 24 of 2021 before this Court. During the pendency of the said petition, attempts were made by the parties to settle the dispute and for the same, the respondent while, assuring to settle the dispute amicably based on mutual consultation and discussion, requested the applicant to withdraw the Arbitration Request pending consideration before this Hon'ble Court. Based on such assurances and promises made by the respondent, the applicant filed an application for withdrawal of the arbitration request with a liberty to file a fresh petition, if occasion, so arises. The said application for withdrawal was allowed by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 01.07.2022 granting liberty to the applicant to file a fresh petition, if the occasion, so arises. Thereafter, various meetings have taken place between the parties with an endeavour to resolve the disputes amicably. 5. Mr. Deshmukh further submits that in the meeting held on 06.06.2023, it was agreed that all pending claims of the applicant should be referred to a special committee, which will be constituted by the respondent. Accordingly, committee was a constituted by the respondent Department vide its letter dated 19.07.2023 with the mandate to submit the recommendation within 15 days. Thereafter, a meeting was held on 26.07.2023, wherein the said committee had observed that the Claims raised are subject to approval from 4 the competent authority, hence, the respondent /Department can consider reviewing the representation of the same. However, no steps whatsoever were initiated and nothing further was decided by the respondent to arrive at an amicable settlement of disputes. As such, the disputes between the parties remained unresolved despite earnest attempts on the part of the a applicant. Owing to lackadaisical approach of the respondent to resolve the disputes, the applicant vide its letter dated 09.10.2023 requested the respondent to pass necessary instructions to expedite the resolution of pending claims under the scrutiny of special committee and to ensure amicable settlement of the claims at least by 31.10.2023. However, the Department did not consider this letter also and did not even chose to reply to this letter. Hence, the present petition. 6. On 12.02.2024, learned State counsel was directed to seek instructions and file response to the petition. Thereafter, the matter was listed on 06.03.2024 when further four weeks time was granted to the State/respondent. The matter was again listed on 09.04.2024, 28.06.2024, 03.09.2024. On 10.09.2024, the learned State counsel submitted that the Committee has been reconstituted on 22.08.2024 and a meeting will soon be convened. The matter was again listed on 15.10.2024 when further two weeks time was sought by the learned State counsel and on 02.12.2024, again on the request of learned State counsel, the matter was adjourned to be posted in the second week of January, 2025. 7. Today also, when the matter is being taken up, Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent submits that the State may be granted further one month’s time to settle the dispute amicably as the meeting of the Committee is to held very soon. 8. In response, Mr. Deshmukh submits that the learned State counsel has been seeking adjournments after adjournments for the last one year but 5 nothing concrete has taken place and today again, time is being sought and as such, he prays that this Court may appoint any arbitrator who shall decide the dispute between the parties. 9. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 10. Clause 25 of the Master Service Agreement which provides for Governing Law and Dispute Resolution is being reproduced herein for ready references:- “25. Governing Law and Dispute Resolution This Agreement shall be governed by and constructed in accordance with the laws of India, without giving effect to conflict of law rules. The parties expressly agree to exclude the application of U.N. Convention of Contracts for the International Sales of Goods (1980) to this Agreement and the performance of the parties contemplated under this Agreement, to the extent that such convention might otherwise be applicable. Parties shall use all reasonable efforts to amicably resolve and settle any dispute arising out of or in relation to or in connection with this Agreement by referring the dispute to a committee constituted under the Governance Schedule. 25.3 In the case of dispute arising out of or in relation to or in connection with the Agreement between the Parties, which has not been settled in accordance with Clause 25.2 above within 30 days from the date of reference of dispute, any Party can submit the dispute for arbitration to a sole Arbitrator to be appointed by mutual consent of both the Parties. If the parties cannot agree on the appointment of the Arbitrator within a period of one month from the notification by one party to the other of existence of such dispute, then the Arbitrator shall be appointed by High Court of Chhattisgarh, India. The provisions of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (or any re-enactment or 6 modification thereof) will be applicable and the award made there under shall be final and binding upon the parties hereto, subject to legal remedies available under the law. The Arbitration proceedings will be held at Raipur, India. The language of the arbitration proceedings and that of all documents and communications between the Parties shall be English. All arbitration awards shall be in writing and shall state the reasons for the award. 25.4 Subject to Arbitration clause above, the courts at Raipur, India shall have sole and exclusive jurisdiction related to any matter pertaining to this Agreement." 11. 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 Dhirendra Mishra, who is a retired Judge of this High Court may be appointed as the Sole Arbitrator. 12. In view of the above consensus between the learned counsel for the parties, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dhirendra Mishra 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. 13. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dhirendra Mishra in the proper address. 14. The remuneration of the Arbitrator shall be settled with the mutual consent of the parties. 15. The arbitration request petition, accordingly, stands allowed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Preeti