1 2025:CGHC:47285 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ARBR No. 21 of 2025 M/s Shiva Enterprises Having Office At 1st Floor 10 Jay Durga Lay Out Narendra Nagar Nagpur - 440015 Represented Through Its Partner And Power Of Attorny Holder Shri Shyam Sunder Mudliar S/o Late Shri Ganpat Mudliar Aged About 55 Years R/o 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 - Divisional Electrical Engineer (Const) South East Central Railways, Kharun Rail Vihar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Applicant :Mr. Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate. (through V.C.) For Respondents/ UOI :Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned DSGI. Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 15.09.2025 1. This is an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2025.09.19 13:08:45 +0530 2 Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, “the Act of 1996”) for appointment of an arbitrator. 2. The applicant has prayed for the following relief(s): “a. Appoint a sole arbitrator as per the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for resolution of he disputes referred by the applicant to the arbitration agreement contained in the Contract. b. Pass any such other order as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.” 3. The brief facts of this case is that a zone of the Indian Railways, had invited tenders for execution of electrical construction work for conversion of overhead lines into underground cable in Raipur Division. The applicant, M/s Shiv Enterprises, participated in the said tender and, having emerged successful, was issued a Letter of Acceptance dated 26.05.2020 for a contract value of Rs. 1,89,93,286.68/-. Subsequently, a formal contract agreement was executed on 17.10.2020. As per the respondent, the work was required to be completed within 12 months. However, despite extensions granted from time to time, the applicant failed to complete the work within the stipulated or extended period. Consequently, the respondent issued a 7 days’ notice dated 22.08.2024, followed by a 48 hours’ notice dated 12.09.2024, and finally terminated the contract on 15.09.2024 for non-performance. 4. The respondent contends that the Applicant thereafter raised claims and demanded arbitration by suggesting appointment of a retired Judge as an independent arbitrator, which, according to the Respondent, was not permissible under the terms of the Railway’s arbitration mechanism and 3 was beyond their jurisdiction. The respondent, therefore, declined such request. 5. The applicant submits that it is a registered partnership firm engaged in electrical supplies and erection for Railways. It duly participated in the tender process and was awarded the contract, which was thereafter executed by way of a written agreement dated 17.10.2020. The applicant asserts that since the inception of the contract, the work was delayed due to reasons not attributable to it, such as absence of work fronts of the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. Recognising such circumstances, the respondent itself extended the original contract period from time to time, the last extension being granted on 22.08.2024. However, to the applicant’s utter surprise, on the same date, the respondent issued a 7 days’ notice, followed by a 48 hours’ notice dated 12.09.2024, and wrongfully terminated the contract on 15.09.2024. The applicant repeatedly requested the respondent to amicably settle its claims but to no avail. Consequently, the applicant issued a notice dated 04.11.2024 invoking arbitration under Clause 64 of the general conditions of Contract, followed by another request dated 20.01.2025, seeking constitution of an arbitral tribunal by appointment of an independent arbitrator, preferably a retired Judge of the Hon’ble High Court. 6. The respondent, while acknowledging the demand, vide letter dated 28.01.2025, declined the applicant’s request by stating that appointment of a retired Judge was beyond its jurisdiction. Thus, the respondent has failed to comply with its obligation under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. In these compelling circumstances, the applicant submits that it has no other remedy except to approach this 4 Hon’ble Court under Section 11(6) of the Act for appointment of a sole independent arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. The applicant further submits that the application is within limitation, has been filed bona fide, and that this Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction as the tender inviting office is located in Bilaspur and the work was executed in Raipur Division. 7. Learned Deputy Solicitor General, appearing for the respondents/Union of India, though opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants, however he submit that the respondent shall have no objection if this Court appoints any retired High Court Judge as an arbitrator for resolving the dispute between the parties. 8. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 9. 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. 10. In view of the above, 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. 5 11. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to Hon’ble Mr. Justice V. K. Shrivastava in the proper address. 12. The remuneration of the Arbitrator shall be settled with the mutual consent of the parties. 13. The arbitration request petition, accordingly, stands allowed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE vaibhav