1 2025:CGHC:47305 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ARBR No. 36 of 2025 Ms Rakesh Kumar Jain Having Office B 101, Block B, Vaishali Enclave, Tikrapara, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. Represented Through Its Authorized Partner Shri Prince Jain, S/o Shri Rakesh Kumar Jain, Aged About 37 Years, R/o A/12, Rama World, Raipur Road, Tifra, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1 - Union Of India Through Its General Manager, South East Central Railways,Bilaspur,(C.G.) 2 - Senior Divisional Engineer Central South East Central Railways, Nagpur Maharastra. ... Respondents For Applicant :Mr. Nishant Bhanushali, Advocate. 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 Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, “the Act of 1996”) for appointment VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2025.09.19 13:08:45 +0530 2 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 contract was executed between the applicant, a registered partnership firm engaged in civil construction and track work with various divisions of Railways, and the respondent, represented through its officers. The respondents invited tenders for the work of “Construction of Limited Height Subway for closure of manned LC No. 525 at Km. 1036/11-13 on Tumsar Road–Gondia section on Gr. A route by box pushing technique with relieving girder.” The applicant was declared successful and awarded the work for a contract value of Rs. 3,02,20,003.81 vide letter of acceptance dated 11.06.2019, followed by execution of a formal agreement on 07.11.2019. The work, initially stipulated to be completed within 12 months, was delayed due to several reasons not attributable to the applicant, such as non-availability of work fronts, delay in clearance of cables, delay in handing over land, delay in issuance of drawings, non-availability of approved steel, and restrictions arising from the COVID-19 3 pandemic. Consequently, the contract period was extended, and the work was completed with a delay of 36 months. 4. Disputes arose when the respondent imposed penalties, deprived the applicant of Price Variation Clause (PVC) benefits, and failed to release payments towards running bills, compensation for idling of men and machinery, and loss of profits. Despite repeated representations, the claims of the applicant were neither considered nor decided by the respondent. 5. In terms of Clause 64 of the general conditions of Contract, 2018, the applicant invoked arbitration by issuing notice dated 01.06.2024, requesting the appointment of an independent Arbitrator, preferably a retired Judicial Officer. However, the respondent failed to act upon the notice, and vide communication dated 13.11.2024, informed the applicant that the Arbitral Tribunal cannot be constituted in the present case. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that despite issuance of notice of invocation of arbitration dated 01.06.2024, the respondent failed to appoint an Arbitrator in accordance with Clause 64 of the General Conditions of Contract. It is contended that as per Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the General Manager or any officer of the respondent is ineligible to act as an arbitrator, and therefore, the applicant specifically declined to waive the statutory bar under Section 12(5) despite this, the respondent, without assigning any valid reason, refused to constitute the Arbitral 4 Tribunal. 7. Learned counsel submits that the cause of action has arisen due to such refusal, and therefore, this Hon’ble Court, having jurisdiction by virtue of the respondent’s office being situated at Bilaspur (C.G.), is empowered under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to appoint an independent arbitrator. It is further urged that in view of the amendment to the Act, the respondent no longer has authority to unilaterally appoint an Arbitrator, and hence, this Court may appoint a fit and proper person, preferably a retired judicial officer, to adjudicate the disputes. 8. 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. 9. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto 10. 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 5 Hon’ble Mr. Justice V. K. Shrivastava who is a retired Judge of this High Court may be appointed as the Sole Arbitrator. 11. 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. 12. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to Hon’ble Mr. Justice V. K. Shrivastava in the proper address. 13. The remuneration of the Arbitrator shall be settled with the mutual consent of the parties. 14. The arbitration request petition, accordingly, stands allowed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE vaibhav