1 2025:CGHC:52334 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ARBR No. 24 of 2025 Shakambhari Ispat and Power Ltd. A Private Company Incorporated Vide CIN- U27109Wb200IPLC093869 under the provisions of the Companies Act 1956 Through Its Authorized Signatory - Mr. Manas Rajan Parida Having Its Registered Office At Diamond Prestige, 41a A.J.C. Bose Road, 8th Floor, Room No- 801, Kolkata, 700017 Mobile - 9883884725 Email - Projectbhilai@Shakambharigroup.in ... Applicant versus 1. Steel Authority of India Limited, (SAIL) Bhiali Steel Plant at Ispat Bhawan, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, 490001, Chhattisgarh, India 2. Steel Authority of India Limited, (Sail) Bhilai Steel Plant Through Its Director-In-Charge, Ispat Bhawan, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, 490001, Chhattisgarh, India 3. DGM (M and BP), Bhilai Steel Plant at Ispat Bhawan, Bhilai, Steel Plant Bhilai,490001, Bhilai, Chhattisgarh, India 4. GM (SMS#1), Bhilai Steel Plant at Ispat Bhawan, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, 490001, Chhattisgarh, India 5. AGM(SMS#1), Bhilai Steel Plant at Ispat Bhawan, Bhilai, Steel Plant, Bhilai, 490001, Chhattisgarh, India 6. DGM (Marketing), Bhilai Steel Plant at Ispat Bhawan, Bhilai, Steel Plant, Bhilai, 490001, Chhattisgarh, India ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Harsh Gupta, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Vivek Chopda, Advocate (through video- conferencing). PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.11.03 11:12:35 +0530 2 Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 27.10.2025 1. This is an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Act of 1996) for appointment of an Arbitrator. 2. The facts, as projected by the applicant are that the applicant is a registered Company under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. Respondent No.1 is Bhilai Steel Plant is a unit of SAIL, a public sector steel manufacturing corporation based in New Delhi. Respondent No.2 is the Director-in-charge of Respondent No.1 undertaking who is responsible for managing the affairs of the undertaking. Further, Respondent Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 are the employees of Respondent No. 1 who were the designated contact persons for the NIT in question and have floated the tender on behalf of respondent undertaking. 3. The respondents had floated NIT dated 02.11.2022 bearing tender No. M&BP/2022-2023/IA/OpenTender/SMS#1/10160227 for sale and dismantling of the Surveyed-Off/Scrap of Steel Melting Shop #1 BSP, Bhilai at Bhilai Steel Plant (BSP) as a single lot on "As is where is" and "No Complaint basis". The project site is hereinafter referred to as SMS-1. As per the Part-A-Clause 4 of the NIT, the Applicant was required to carry out inspection of SMS-1 site and also submit a declaration of site visit along with list of exclusions and list of deviations as per Schedule 1.8-1. The Applicant visited the site and after thorough inspection of the site and on the basis of the plant, machinery equipment and material at the site, the Applicant participated in the tender and submitted its bid along with earnest money of Rs 3,00,00,000/-. The Applicant also submitted the declaration of site visit, list of exclusions and list of deviations. The Applicant was made to 3 believe that the Applicant would also find certain equipment(s) while digging the site and the same would also have to be dismantled by the Applicant and would belong to the Applicant as per the NIT and subsequent Sale Offer. Further, a bare perusal of the list of exclusions submitted by the Applicant would reveal to this Hon'ble Court that no items whatsoever were mentioned in the list of exclusions submitted by the Applicant, meaning thereby that the Applicant submitted its bid under a bonafide belief that the entire SMS-1 would belong to it upon payment of the price consideration if declared as H-1 bidder. The Applicant also submitted a Method Statement containing expected resources and timelines for carrying out the dismantling and disposal work. The said Method Statement contains the seal and signature of the authorised representatives of both the Applicant and Respondents. 4. Mr. Harsh Gupta, learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant’s bid was accepted and the Applicant was declared as H-1 bidder. Subsequently, a Sale Offer bearing No. 40074420 dated 16.03.2023 was issued by Respondents in favor of Applicant. As per the Sale Offer total amount to be remitted by the Applicant was Rs. 356,73,86,466/- including the Security Deposit of Rs.14,35,00,0000/- before 15.04.2023. The said Sale Offer was valid up to 16.03.2025. The Applicant made full payment of Rs. 356,73,86,466/- towards the aforesaid Sale Offer between 30.11.2022 and 12.04.2023 and also sent an e-mail dated 12.04.2023 regarding the same to the Respondent and the Respondent duly confirmed the receipt of the payment vide its email dated 13.04.2023. The nature of the project required upfront payment of the entire consideration of such a hefty amount and as such any delay in execution of the project attributable to the Respondents would lead to substantial financial set back to the Applicant. 5. Thereafter, on 15.04.2023, the Applicant was issued a Delivery Order 4 (bearing no. 50075808) by the Respondents and subsequently, the SMS-I site was handed over to Applicant on 18.04.2023 after due formalities. The Applicant received a memorandum from the Office of Respondents confirming that all auxiliary and associated facilities have now been officially transferred to the Applicant. All work relating to the operation has been executed as per the Terms and Conditions of NIT (Notice Inviting Tender) with respect to Dismantling & Disposal of SMS-1 for its timely completion. As per the terms of the NIT, the scope of work under the contract was complete dismantling of SMS-1 along with its associated facilities up to +0.00 level more specifically defined in NIT Part-B - Clause 2.1, 2.2, 3.2. The project was to be executed on “as is where is basis” and “No Complaint Basis”. It is reiterated herein that there were no items in the list of exclusions submitted by the Applicant. As per Clause 1.1.4 of Part B of NIT, the Respondents have themselves undertaken and stated that they had already transferred various equipment and assets of SMS-1 to other shops and the ownership of the remaining equipment, assets and associated facilities exclusively vested with the Applicant without any demur or exclusions. As the Applicant had invested huge sums of money, it immediately deployed the necessary machinery and labour at SMS-1 and began the dismantling work. However, since the very beginning, the Applicant had to face constant delays and difficulties due to non-compliance of the Terms and Conditions of NIT by the officials of Respondents such as non-providing of sufficient loading witnesses, delay in isolation of utility lines, congestion of vehicles at Boria gate etc. The Respondents were illegally lifting material from SMS-1 already sold under the Sale Offer to the Applicant. Such acts of Respondents are illegal in nature and cannot be resorted to. Such an unauthorized lifting of material by the Respondents belonging to the Applicant resulted in huge monetary losses for which the Respondents are 5 liable to compensate. The Applicant sent emails dated 21.04.2023, 02.05.2023, 27.05.2023 and 29.05.2023 to the Respondents seeking isolation of utility lines so that the dismantling can be done safely but to no avail thus resulting in delay in execution of the work. Further, the Applicant had time and again requested the Respondents to relocate refractory bricks as without the same, permit to work could not be issued to the Applicant. The Applicant in this regard sent an email dated 03.05.2023 to the Respondents requesting to relocate refractory bricks from mould yard- 1. The Applicant further sent a reminder email dated 10.05.2023 to the Respondents but to no avail. The Applicant also raised its concerns in the meeting dated 17.05.2023 with the officials of Respondent Authorities. The Applicant raised its primary concerns related to interest burden to the tune of Rs. 40,00,000/- per day on the invested amount, isolation of utility lines, lack of drinking water facilities, relocation of refractory bricks stacked at SMS-1. 6. The Respondents had granted limited permission to the Applicant for movement of vehicles through specific gates. However, due to congestion at the gates, the Applicant could not timely arrange Oxygen and LPG vehicles which adversely impacted the pace of work. The Applicant in this regard had also sent an email dated 27.05.2023 requesting the Respondent to permit the oxygen and LPG vehicles through the emergency gate stating that there was congestion at the Boria gate. The Applicant sent an email dated 03.06.2023 to Respondent stating that many items (Refractory, electrical, mechanical, etc) were still lying at SMS-1 complex and it was requested that the BSP's Department who had claim on their items to be relocated within one week. The aforesaid conduct demonstrates the bonafide of the Applicant as even though it had complete right, title and interest over the assets, machinery, scraps etc over ground “0” of SMS-1, 6 the Applicant still sent the aforesaid email to Respondent to relocate the items if any, before 10.06.2023. The Applicant sent a letter dated 21.06.2023 to the Respondent regarding hindrances faced by it on site and also requested Respondent to appoint more loading witnesses but to no avail. It is needless to mention herein that the Applicant had time and again requested the Respondent to appoint more loading witnesses vide its letters dated 14.07.2023, 30.07.2023, 18.12.2023, 13.04.2024, 07.03.2024, 18.04.2024, 19.04.2024 but to no avail. The Applicant has time and again sent letters seeking permission for lifting of materials and the Respondents have not only failed to revert to the said emails but have also levelled allegations in regard to unauthorised lifting of material(s). The Applicant had sent a letter dated 12.07.2023 to the Respondent seeking permission to lift the OH Ingots. On 26.08.2023, the Applicant sent a letter to the Respondents seeking clarification and immediate action regarding the possession and delivery of assets as per the NIT including loose items located at specified yards and inoperative railway tracks, which were shown during the inspection. Further, the Applicant in the said letter also reiterated that a final notice was sent on 03.06.2023 for the removal of materials belonging to other departments and the same has been handed over to their respective departments absolving the Applicant of any further responsibility. The Applicant had incurred losses due to theft of copper cables and valuable materials which were found during the Inspection. The Applicant thereafter again sent an email dated 28.08.2023 in this regard. 7. On 12.09.2023, the Applicant again sent a letter to the Respondents stating and clarifying that after 17.09.2023 no material will be provided to any of the Respondent’s sister Department(s) and further requested the Respondents to relocate all items before 17.09.2023 itself. The Applicant specifically stated that therein that the Applicant had to incur huge losses due to halting 7 of work and theft of valuable materials during this period. Similar letters were sent by the Applicant to the Respondent on 25.09.2023, 28.09.2023, 04.11.2023, 13.11.2023 and 23.12.2023 also. The Applicant also highlighted the fact of violation of terms and conditions of NIT by Respondents in its letters. On 06.10.2023, the Applicant sent a letter to the Respondent regarding disposal of scrap from magnetic yard and letters 18.10.2023 and 19.10.2023 were sent by the Applicant to Respondent registering its strong protest against the unauthorized removal of materials from the Magnetic Yard, which was within the scope of the Tender Document. This action was carried out by Respondent officials without any prior notice or communication to the Applicant. The Applicant further requested an immediate action against the responsible sister Departments, highlighting that similar unauthorized activities were happening repeatedly causing significant financial and operational losses to the Company. On 21.10.2023, the Applicant in good faith and to maintain its reputation, again wrote to the Respondent providing a detailed account of the materials that had been shifted and stored securely as per the order received from the officials of Respondent. This action underscores the Applicant’s commitment to transparency and adherence to the terms of the agreement. In regard to lifting of material from magnetic yard, the Applicant sent an email dated 04.11.2023 to Respondent stating that they had found some ferro manganese while dismantling at their site magnetic yard. As per NIT since they purchased the material on as is where is - lot basis hence the above material belonged to them and they were entitled to lift the same. As such, request was made to look into the matter and permit them to lift the material. This clearly shows that the Applicant has been continuously communicating with the Respondent not only regarding lifting of material but also regarding the fact that the entire SMS-1 belonged to the Applicant as 8 per the Sale Order and NIT. 8. Mr. Gupta submits that as per the terms of the contract, the loose materials lying at the site belonged to the Applicant and despite the same, the act of the Applicant in seeking prior permission from the Respondent only depicts the bonafide conduct of the Applicant. On 23.12.2023, the Applicant again wrote to Respondent to address its concern with regard to the security and proper handling of duly acquired assets of the company. Applicant also registered its protest against the relocation of material by Respondent from the magnetic yard on its own accord stating that if Respondent indeed wished to acquire material for its own use, then such transaction should be conducted in accordance with the prevailing market value. The Applicant was carrying out its work in all its earnest despite facing hindrances. Applicant also sent a letter dated 10.05.2024 to the Respondent for demolition of pump house 66 which was causing hindrance. The Applicant further sent a letter dated 24.06.2024 seeking clearance of non-working rail lines (idle assets) of SMS-1 and a letter dated 27.06.2024 highlighting the problem faced by it with respect to entry of vehicles. 9. Mr. Gupta further submits that despite the above bona-fide conduct of Applicant, it was to the utter shock of the Applicant, that FIR bearing No. RC1242024A0003 dated 28.06.2024 was lodged on the basis of a written complaint dated 21.11.2023 of S Karuna Raju, IAS Chief Vigilance Officer, Steel Authority of India (SAIL) against the Applicant along with its representative . Vaibhav Khandelwal alleging the Applicant’s involvement in purportedly baseless allegations, particularly with reference to Tender No. M&BP/2022-2023/IA/Open Tender/ SMS#1/ 10160227, concerning the sale and dismantling of the Surveyed-Off/Scrap of Steel Melting Shop #1 (SMS#1) at Bhilai Steel Plant (BSP). There was no prior notice and/or communication and/or complaint whatsoever before lodging the aforesaid 9 FIR. During the entire duration of the contract, various teams of Respondent have been present on-site and have been actively monitoring the work, however at no point of time any complaint was made against the Applicant concerning removing any material, which was not part of the SMS-1. In fact, the Applicant has regularly communicated the problems it encountered through periodic emails to the Respondents. Despite having absolutely no iota of evidence to even remotely suggest that any items like Slabs, Blooms and Ferro-Manganese etc. not belonging to SMS-1 has been found shifted at SMS-1, the aforesaid FIR was filed against the Applicant. As per clause 2.1.2 of the Terms and Conditions of NIT, the scope of work covers ‘complete dismantling of SMS-1 along with all its associated facilities up to ±0.00 level, stacking, cutting to pieces, stacking, loading, transportation of dismantled materials viz., steel structural, concrete structures, brick masonry, refractory, various mechanical/electrical equipment, pipes, etc.’. Therefore, Applicant has a complete right to dismantle and remove the materials lying over SMS-1. However, because of the hindrances and obstruction caused by Respondent and its officials and also because of the aforesaid FIR, Applicant’s work has drastically suffered. There has been loss of about 40 man-days due to the aforesaid act of the Respondent, whereby the Applicant could not do any work relating to its project/contract. The workforce, machinery, equipment and vehicles etc. hired by Applicant had to remain idle resulting in huge loss of the company, which is solely attributable to act and omissions of the Respondent and for which Respondent is liable to compensate to the Applicant. The Applicant sent a representation dated 05.09.2024 lodging its strong protest for registering FIR against it and also called for an amicable settlement of the matter with regard to the dispute of the “alleged irregularities in dismantling and disposal of Steel Melting Shop (SMS)-1 in Bhilai Steel Plant (BSP)”. 10 However, Respondent failed to take notice of the aforesaid representation. 10. Mr. Gupta further submits that the safety procedures followed by the respondents are stringent and theft as alleged is improbable. A perusal of Clauses 28, 31, safety stipulations and operating procedures of NIT would reveal that the respondents are at liberty to unload and inspect the vehicle in case of any suspicion. Further, the movement of vehicles inside the plant was tracked and any unauthorized stoppage or deviation in route would immediately come to the knowledge of Respondents. The Applicant has been falsely implicated and no claim whatsoever arises against the Applicant. Despite securing ownership of the material in accordance with the terms of acquisition on an “as-is-where-is” and “no complaint basis” several materials till date have been relocated from the magnetic yard by the Officials and sister departments of Respondent causing hefty damages to the Applicant. The Respondent is under an obligation to submit a list of materials lifted by them and accordingly compensate the Applicant for the illegal lifting of materials belonging to the Applicant and lying at SMS-1 site. The Respondent’s persistent non-compliance with the terms of the tender agreement has severely impaired the progress of the contracted work. Due to the aforementioned delays and hindrances caused due to the Respondent’s actions, the Applicant has incurred loss of its goodwill along with the massive financial losses in terms of idle resources, escalated costs, and the inability to meet timelines agreed upon with third parties. 11. It is next submitted by Mr. Gupta that the Applicant being aggrieved by the wrongful acts of Respondents, finally sent a notice invoking conciliation under clause 36 of the Tender Document dated 26.12.2024 demanding payment of Rs. 51,26,00,000 /-. The parties thereafter participated in the conciliation proceedings in accordance with Clause 36 of the Tender Document on 11.02.2025 and 25.02.2025. During the pendency of 11 conciliation proceedings, the Respondents sent a demand letter dated 27.01.2025 to the Applicant claiming an amount of Rs. 3,28,14,519.30/- on account of alleged unauthorized lifting of 872.675 T material and further levying a penalty of Rs. 26,47, 037.89/- as per Clause 5 of Annexure D of NIT. The Applicant herein sent a reply dated 30.01.2025 and also filed a reply dated 25.02.2025 to the above demand letter during the Conciliation Proceedings. It is important to mention here that the Respondents failed to file any Reply or make any submissions in regard to the notice sent by the Applicant during the entire Conciliation proceedings. Finally, the conciliation proceedings failed on 25.02.2025 due to lack of consensus between the parties. The Respondent has already granted Extension of Time to the Applicant for a period of 02 months without imposition of costs/penalty, implying thereby that the delay in carrying out work is not attributable to the Applicant rather to the Respondents. 12. After the failure of conciliation proceedings on 25.02.2025, the Applicant has invoked arbitration and has sent a notice dated 21.03.2025 under Section 21 of the Act of 1996 for appointment of Arbitrator within 30 days of receipt of such notice. The Respondents have failed to reply to the said notice dated 21.03.2025 and as such a period of 30 days has already lapsed. The Applicant is entitled to extension of time in accordance with the agreed terms between the parties. The Applicant is also entitled to claim loss under various heads, compensation and damages during the Arbitration proceedings. 13. In the meanwhile, feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the action of the Respondents, the Applicant on 29.04.2025 approached the Hon'ble Commercial Court at Nava Raipur and filed an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking injunction on the Respondents from recovering any money whatsoever from the Applicant 12 including money deposited as Security Deposit submitted by the Applicant till the Appointment of Arbitrator or for such period as the Hon'ble Court deems fit. Further, the Applicant has sought interference of the Hon’ble Court in safeguarding the materials belonging to Applicant as per the Sale Order and also in injuncting the respondents from unauthorized lifting of any materials whatsoever from SMS-1 plant area until the appointment of Arbitrator and the same is subjudice. 14. The Respondent has not sent any reply to the notice dated 21.03.2025 sent by the Applicant although there is no dispute with respect to the existence of an Arbitration clause as the Arbitration clause 37 contains all the essentials of valid Arbitration clause. The Arbitration clause in the present case is duly incorporated in the NIT and the said clause provides for any disputes or differences arising between the parties to the contract be settled through recourse to Arbitration, the decision of which shall be final and binding upon the parties which iterates the specific and direct intention of the parties to resolve the disputes through Arbitration and as such the clause 37 is a valid arbitration clause, and as such, all the pre-arbitration requirements have also been fulfilled by the parties. As per Section 11 of the Act of 1996, in case, the parties fail to reach upon an agreement to decide or appoint an arbitrator, either party can move the Hon’ble High Court for appointment of an arbitrator to adjudicate and settle the dispute in question. To add to that, with Clause 37 of NIT stating that the disputes shall be referred to the sole arbitrator to be appointed by the Chief Executive Officer, Bhilai Steel Plant, Steel Authority of India Limited goes against the basic principles of fair trial and fair hearing. The principle of nemo judex in causa sua, which states that a party cannot be a judge of its own cause, is to be applied here thereby ensuring fair trial conduct and preserving the natural justice doctrine. It is further stated that as per Clause 38 of the NIT, the legal jurisdiction lies with 13 the courts of Durg (Chhattisgarh). 15. Mr. Gupta lastly submits that in view of the above factual matrix, the applicant has been left with no option but to approach this Hon’ble Court for appointment of an arbitrator since the disputes cannot be referred to the sole arbitrator to be appointed by the Chief Executive Officer, Bhilai Steel Plant, Steel Authority of India Limited being an interested party as the Non- Applicant is an instrumentality of the State of Chhattisgarh. 16. Mr. Vivek Chopda, learned counsel appearing for the respondent relying on the return filed on behalf of respondent, opposes this arbitration request application and submits that at the outset, that the present application is grossly misconceived and misleading in as much as the true and correct fact pertaining to the case has not been brought on record deliberately by the applicant herein. He submits that that with respect to the same cause of action, already a CBI Enquiry has been initiated in which the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent below by the CBI and as such unless the issue of fraud, cheating etc are decided by the competent court of law on the same issue no further civil action can be initiated. Under the instant NIT, the work entrusted upon the applicant has been completed by the applicant and an application/email has been written by the applicant on 14.06.2025 to the effect that, he has completed the entire work of Dismantling of the Project i.e., SMS-1 and there exist no further ground based upon which the appointment is been sought. It is further submitted that based upon the application made by the applicant a completion certificate has also been issued by the respondent in favor of the applicant on 21.06.2025. The instant application for appointment of the Arbitrator has been made by the applicant only with a solitary intention of dislodging the criminal case instituted against him and the conniving officers of the respondent. Only in order to bring the said criminal case within the periphery 14 of a civil litigation, the instant application for appointment of the Arbitrator in filing of claim has been made by the applicant herein and therefore, the instant application deserves to be dismissed in this count alone. In the instant case there are various serious issues of fraud, forgery which goes to the root of the arbitration agreement between the parties and the same is not only in personae but also in rem, in as much as, the applicant herein has in connivance with public officials of the answering respondents, have lifted from the subject site the material which were not contracted for, for their own benefits and in order to cause the wrongful loss to the state exchequer, which is indeed an act of cheating and forgery being committed by the said persons, including the applicant not only as against the answering respondent but also against the private persons, and therefore, when there are serious allegation of fraud and forgery etc., the adjudication of the same cannot be made in the arbitration in as much as the same requires extensive and meticulous examination of witnesses and evidences brought on record as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of A. Ayyasamy v. A. Paramasivam, (2016) 10 SCC 386. In the said case, it was held that, cases where there exists serious allegation of fraud are to be treated as non-arbitrable and such matters have to be dealt with only by the civil courts. However, in case, the allegations are in the nature of fraud simplicitor, such disputes can be dealt by the Arbitral Tribunal. Further reliance is placed on a decision of the Delhi High Court in Bentwood Seating System (P) Ltd. Versus Airport Authority of India and Another 2025 SCC OnLine Del 1558. 17. Mr. Chopda submits that since the entire work under the tender has been completed and a completion certificate has been duly issued to the applicant herein, there exist no other grounds based upon which the present application may be entertained. As per clause 37 of the NIT, it is evident 15 that apart from the excepted matters only, the arbitration can be conducted. In the instant case, the sole ground based upon which the instant application has been filed by the applicant is that, the applicant has been awarded the contract under the NIT dated 02.11.2022 for Dismantling of Project i.e., SMS-1 site and subsequently a sale offers bearing no. 40074420 dated 16.03.2023 was issued by the answering respondent in favor of the applicant. The total amount to be remitted by the applicant under the instant tender was Rs.356,73,86,466/- i.e., including the security deposit of Rs.14,35,00,000/- before 15.04.2023. The post receipt of the said sale order, a delivery order was also issued in favor of the applicant based upon which the applicant has started his work of Dismantling the SMS-1 in terms of the NIT Part B clauses 2.1, 2.2, 3.2 etc. It is submitted by applicant that, thereafter various issues were faced by the applicant based upon which an application has been made by the applicant for extension of time which was duly granted to the applicant vide committee report dated 22.02.2025, whereby a three months extension has been granted on the grounds that: i. Single invoice was issued on 09.05.2023 which was almost one month from the date of issue of delivery order dated 15.04.2023. ii. Due to extended rainy season water logging occurred in chimney flue tunnel area of Twin Hearth Furnaces, so it delayed the excavation of fire bricks and leveling work which is still in progress. iii. Mixer-1 & 2 underground waterpipe lines which were heavily corroded, got ruptured and took around two months for repair by WMD. It delayed the breaking/demolition of main foundations. 18. Mr. Chopda further submits that thereafter no further extension has been granted to the applicant and in the meanwhile the applicant herein has filed an application under Section 9 before the learned Commercial Court at District Level at Naya Raipur, which is pending consideration. The case of the applicant for adjudication before the arbitrator is that, even though he has been granted the SMS-1 site along with auxiliary units for dismantling 16 and taking over of the dismantle products however he has been denied the opportunity to take all the materials etc., which has been defined under the contract and there are certain material which has been kept by the answering respondents at various locations belonging to the applicant and therefore the instant arbitration is being sought. An FIR dated 28.06.2024, bearing No. RC1242024A0003, has been registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), ACB Division, on the complaint of the officials of the Respondent, wherein categorical and specific allegations have been levelled against the Applicant, as well as other individuals, including the then General Manager (SMS-I) of the respondent. The said FIR discloses the commission of serious offences under Sections 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 7, 13(1), and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The applicant, in connivance with certain officials of the respondent, illegally removed and misappropriated materials which were not within the scope of the contract awarded to him, causing substantial pecuniary loss to Bhilai Steel Plant. As per the FIR, the applicant unlawfully lifted items including slabs, blooms, and ferrous-manganese valued at approximately Rs.46,00,000/-, ingots and other materials worth Rs.19,00,000/- from the slag yard of the Material Recovery Department on 08.07.2023, 35 ingot mould bogies worth around Rs.2,92,00,000/- which were due to be handed over to the Transport and Dispatch Department but were instead cut and removed, along with pipelines approximately Rs.15,00,000/- from Pump House-65, all of which fall outside the scope of the contractual work assigned. It is submitted that, since the matter is presently under scrutiny by the CBI Court (Speedy trial Court) and arises from the same set of facts and transactions as the present application, no relief ought to be granted by this Hon'ble Court at this stage, as doing so may result in conflicting findings and prejudice the ongoing investigation. In 17 view of the above the factual narrations made by the application herein is denied in toto. In the aforesaid backdrop and in terms of clause 37 of the arbitration agreement between the parties it is apparent that the same does not falls within clause 37 in as much as the grant of extension and the question with respect to illegal lifting of the material by the applicant or the respondent inter se does not falls within the purview of the arbitration clause and such the instant application is not maintainable and the same deserves to be dismissed at the threshold by this Hon'ble Court. Even otherwise, the instant application is liable to be dismissed for the reason that the notice under Section 21 has not been issued in accordance with the procedure agreed under the Arbitration clause 37. In the said clause, it is specifically agreed by the parties that "the notice regarding the invoking of the Arbitration clause shall be served by the parties hereto by registered post at their address given in the contract". In the instant case notice under Section 21 has not been issued by applicant but by Advocate and therefore in terms of the Section 21, which specifically requires that initiation of arbitration has to be in terms of the agreement, in the instant case there is no notice and hence application is liable to be rejected. 19. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 20. It is not in dispute that Clause 37 of the agreement between the parties provides for arbitration clause. The applicant had duly sent a notice for invocation of arbitration clause on 21.03.2025 and further from the pleadings made in the petition and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, it is evident that there exists a dispute which may be referred to the Arbitrator. Though the arbitration notice was sent by an Advocate, but that cannot be a ground for rejection of the arbitration application as the Advocate has acted on behalf of and on the advice of the applicant. 18 21. 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. 22. In view of the above consensus between the learned counsel for the parties, Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.K. Agrawal, a retired Judge of this High Court, to act as the Sole Arbitrator for resolving the dispute between the parties before whom the respondents shall be at liberty to raise all his objections, as has been raised herein. 23. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.K.Agrawal in the proper address. 24. The remuneration of the Arbitrator shall be settled with the mutual consent of the parties. 25. The arbitration request petition, accordingly, stands allowed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Preeti