1 2025:CGHC:54937 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 1198 of 2024 1 - Rashmi Khanna D/o Satish Kumar Suri Aged About 35 Years R/o Ward Nol. 21 Near Surbhi Park, Manendragarh, Korea, District Korea, (Chhattisgarh) Now District Mcb, Chhattisgarh. --- (Judgment Debtor) 2 - Rinkesh Khanna S/o Jagdish Chandra Khanna Aged About 38 Years R/o Ward Nol. 21 Ambikapur Road, Near Jaiswal Petrot Pump, Chainpur, Manendragarh, District Korea, (Chhattisgarh) Now District Mcb, Chhattisgarh. --- (Judgment Debtor) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - M/s Cholamandalam, Investment And Finance Company Limited Registered Office At Der House No. 2, Nsc Bose Road, Chennai 600001, Brnach Office, Cholamandalam Investment And Finance Company Ltd. Ward No. 21 Near Bhaiyyalal Petrol Pump, Ambikapur Road, Chainpur, Manendragarh,tehsil Manendragarh, District Korea, (Chhattisgarh) Now District Mcb, Chhattisgarh. --- (Descriptions Of The Parties Mentioned As Per The Records Of Impugned Execution Proceedings ) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sushobhit Singh, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Swayam Tehanguria, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput) Order on Board 11/11/2025 1. The petitioners have filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- 10.1 That, this Hon’ble may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order, direction in the nature of certiorari and quash the impugned execution proceedings bearing MJC Civil Case No.50/24 between the parties Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co.Ltd., Vs. Rinkesh Khanna pending before the Court of 1st District Judge, Manendragarh District Korea Now MCB-C.G. (Annexure P-1) 2 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief as it may deems fit and appropriate. 2. Mr. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the identical issue has previously arisen before this Court in WP227 No.1162 of 2024 and this Court vide its order dated 04.03.2025 allowed that writ petition and quashed the execution proceedings initiated on account of an award passed by an arbitrator appointed unilaterally by the respondent. He further submits that the issue involved in the present writ petition is no longer res integra in light of the above aforementioned judgment. Therefore, he prays that the present writ petition may also be decided in terms of that order. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent though opposes the submissions, however he is not in a position to dispute the law laid down by this Court in WP227 No.1162 of 2024. A pointed query was raised by this Court as to whether the order dated 04.03.2025 passed in WP227 No.1162 of 2024 has been assailed or not. Mr. Tehanguria submits that the order has not been assailed as yet. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. The challenge in this writ petition is to an execution proceeding initiated by the respondent for execution of the award dated 16.05.2022 passed by the Sole Arbitrator. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the appointment of the arbitrator was unilateral and against the mandate of Section 12(5) r/w Schedule 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as amended by the Amendment Act of 2015. He submits that the issue involved in WP227 No.1162 of 2024 is similar to the case at hand, where the arbitrator was appointed by the respondent unilaterally. Therefore, the award is required to be set aside including the execution proceeding. This Court, in that previous case, relying upon the judgment of Supreme Court and this Court in the cases of Bharat Broadman Limited Vs. United Telecom, 2019 (5) SCC 755; Shreepat Mishra and another Vs. M/s Equitas Small finance Bank Limited and others, WP227 No.726 of 2023 decided on 09.09.2024; TRF Limited Vs. Energo Engineering Projects Limited, 2017 (8) 3 SCC 377; Perkins Eastman Architects DPC and another Vs. HSCC (India) Ltd., AIR 2020 SC 59, allowed that writ petition and quashed the award and execution proceedings. In the opinion of this Court, as the said order passed in WP227 No.1162 of 2024 has not been assailed by the respondent, this Court is not inclined to take a different view. Therefore, the execution proceedings (Annexure P-1) and award dated 16.05.2022 (Annexure P-2) are hereby quashed. However, liberty is reserved in favour of the respondent to initiate fresh proceeding in accordance with the settled legal preposition. 6. With the aforesaid observation(s), this petition is disposed of. 7. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Parul PARUL MITTAL Digitally signed by PARUL MITTAL Date: 2025.11.14 10:45:07 +0530