1 2025:CGHC:10552 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ARBR No. 45 of 2024 M/s Shiva Enterprises, Having OfÏce At 1st Floor, 10 Jay Durga Lay Out, Narendra Nagar, Nagpur-440015. Represented Through Its Partner And Power of Attorney Holder, Shri Shyam Sunder Mudliar S/o Late Shri Ganpat Mudiar, Aged About 55 Years, Resident of Plot No. 7, Madhuban Society, Manish Nagar, Nagpur, Maharashtra. ... Applicant versus 1. Union of India, Through Its General Manager, South East Central Railways, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2. Chief Electrical Engineer (Const.) South East Central Railways GM Annex Building, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Deputy Chief Electrical Engineer (Cons.) South East Central Railways, Nagpur, Maharashtra. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Deputy Solicitor General. Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 04.03.2025 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 applicant is a PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI 2 registered partnership firm and is inter-alia, engaged in the activity of electrical supplies and erection for Railways. The respondent No. 1 is a zone of Indian Railways situated in the Central India and is serving the States of Chhattisgarh, Orissa, Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra. The Respondent Nos. 2 to 3 are its OfÏcers. The respondent No. 2 invited a bid for the work of "Electrification of new station building, El Room, IPS Room, Battery Room, End Goomties, LC Gates, OHE Depot, PSI Depot, RRD Depot, Controlling posts, S&T ofÏce, S&T store, Auto signaling goomties, Central relay room, Type-II and Type-III Qrts and modification of 11 KV & 33 KV power line X-ings and shifting of electrical infringements between Bortalao to Kalumna in connection with RJN-NGP 3rd Line work in Nagpur Division overt SEC Railway." The applicant had also participated in the tender and upon becoming the successful bidder, the Letter of Acceptance was issued on 05.11.2019 for the Contract Value of Rs. 5,17,93,533/-. The work was to be completed within the period of 24 months. Subsequently, the Contract Agreement was signed between the applicant and the respondent No. 3 on 06.12.2019. Since the inception of the Contract, the work was being delayed due to the reasons not attributable to the applicant, namely, delay due to absence of work fronts, delay due to COVID-19 Pandemic. As a result of which, the original Contract Period has been extended by the respondent from time to time till 30.09.2024 under Clause 17-A of GCC and last extension was granted vide letter dated 09.05.2024. To the utter surprise of the applicant, the respondent No. 3 immediately thereafter, issued the purported 7 days' notice dated 25.05.2024. Thereafter, 48 hours' notice was issued on 01.06.2024 and the Contract has been wrongfully terminated. 3. Mr. Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh, learned counsel for the applicant submits that time and again, the applicant requested the respondent to resolve the 3 claims, however, the respondent failed to pay heed to same. Accordingly, the applicant vide its notice of settlement of dispute dated 10.06.2024 submitted various claims for settlement and for arbitration. Since nothing was heard from the respondent and accordingly, the claimant again submitted the claims vide its letter dated 05.10.2024 and requested to kindly constitute the arbitral tribunal comprising of independent arbitrator, preferably a retired judge of the Hon'ble High Court for fair adjudication of the claims raised by the Applicant. The respondent vide its letter dated 22.10.2024 while acknowledging the receipt of the demand of arbitration from the applicant, informed the applicant that the request of applicant for constitution of arbitral tribunal consisting of retired judge, which is beyond the jurisdiction of the Railways. In view of the forgoing compelling circumstances, there is no effective remedy to the applicant except approaching this Hon'ble Court for appointment of an independent Arbitrator under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as the condition precedent for the application has been satisfied as the respondent has failed to appoint the arbitrator at the request by the applicant to do so. 4. Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents relying on the return filed on behalf of respondents, opposes this arbitration request 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. 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. 4 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. 7. In view of the above consensus between the learned counsel for the parties, Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K.Shrivastava 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 V.K.Shrivastava 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