1 2025:CGHC:50935 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ARBR No. 14 of 2025 1. M/s Hind Energy And Coal Beneficiation (I) Limited, A company incorporated under the Provision of Companies Act, 1956, Having its registered office at, Office No. 1, 319, Karnani Mansion 25A, Park Street, Kolkata, West Bengal - 700016 Having Its Administrative Office, At 1st Floor, Sai Parisar, Shrikant Verma Marg, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh - 495001 Through its Director, Shri Pawan Kumar Agrawal 2. M/s Clean Coal Enterprises Private Limited, A Private Limited Company, incorporated under the Provision of the Companies Act, 1956, Having its Registered Office At, SK-1, Second Floor, Rama Port, Vyapaar Vihaar, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh - 495001 Through its Director, Shri Kamal Kejriwal ... Applicants versus M/s Maha Mineral Mining and Benefaction Private Limited, Through its Board of Directors, Having its registered Office at, Unit 206, 2nd Floor, Kamla Spaces, Khira Nagar SV Road, Santacruz West, Mumbai City, Mumbai, Maharashtra - 400054 Having its corporate Office at, 7th Floor, Wind-B, Shriram Shyam Tower, Near NIT, Kingsway, Nagpur, Maharashtra- 440001. ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Ankit Singhal, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Devendra Chouhan, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Ashish Pandey, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Abhinav Kardekar, Advocate. PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.10.15 18:28:07 +0530 2 Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 13.10.2025 1. This is an application under Sections 11 (5) and (6) read with Section 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, ‘the Act of 1996’) for appointment of sole Arbitrator. 2. The applicants have prayed for the following relief(s): “(a) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to invoke its power under Section 11(5) & (6) r/w Section 15 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (as amended) and in exercise thereof be pleased to substitute and appoint Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute and difference arisen between the parties as stipulated by the terms and conditions therein of the subject JV Agreement dated 02.12.2019 and LLP Agreement dated 08.12.2019, in the interest of justice; and (b) This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass such further orders as may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. The facts, in brief, as projected by the applicants are that the present application is being filed under Sections 11(5) and (6) read with Section 15 of the Act of 1996 for substitution and appointment of Sole Arbitrator in terms of Clause 16 of the JV Agreement dated 02.12.2019 and Clause 18 of the Limited Liability Agreement (for short ‘LLP’) Agreement dated 08.12.2019 to adjudicate the disputes arisen between the applicants and the respondent. M/s Maharashtra State Mining Corporation Ltd. floated a tender document for "Beneficiation of 3 RoM Coal and Supply of Beneficiated Coal to Chandrapur, Koradi, Khaperkheda, Masik, Bhusawal, Parli and Paras TPS of MAHAGENCO" and the applicant No. 1 successfully participated in the same as lead member. 4. Mr. Ankit Singhal, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the Applicant No. 1, i.e., M/s Hind Energy and Coal Beneficiation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "HECB") is a company incorporated under the provision of the Companies Act, 1956 (as amended) and is also engaged in the business of washing, trading, and transportation of Coal. Further, applicant No. 1 is a prominent and leading group engaged in the business of, inter alia, coal washing, logistics, trading and allied operations in the country including areas such as SECL and MCL. Additionally, the Applicant No. 1 is engaged in promoting, acquiring, constructing, managing and operating power generation plants of conventional or non-conventional sources, co-generation power plants, energy conservation projects, power houses, transmission and distribution systems for generation, distribution, transmission and supply of electrical energy. Pertinently, applicant No. 1 is one of the only two coal-washing companies in the country that has spread out their work in multiple states and has successfully received and completed repeated orders. Applicant No. 2 is a private limited company incorporated under the provision of the Companies Act, 1956 (as amended) and is also engaged in the business of washing, trading and transportation of Coal. The respondent, i.e., Maha Mineral Mining and Beneficiation Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as "MMMBPL") is a private limited company incorporated under the 4 provision of the Companies Act, 1956 (as amended) and is also engaged in the business of washing, trading and transportation of Coal. 5. Mr. Singhal further submits that the applicants and the respondent entered into a JV Agreement to form M/s Hind Maha Mineral LLP and consequently, applicants and respondent executed an LLP Agreement. During the course of execution of the tender work, M/s M.P. Power Generating Company Limited has floated a NIT for the work of RoM Coal Beneficiation and Managing Associated Logistics from WCL (Nagpur Area) sources for SSTPP, Khandwa (M.P.). The respondent, in violation of JV Agreement, has participated in the same and its bid has been rejected which was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh by way of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, however, the said writ petition has been rejected. Further, it has been learnt by the applicants that respondent has been receiving direct payments from MSMC for the work being performed by the LLP, which is in complete contravention of the JV Agreement and LLP Agreement and to best of the knowledge of the applicants, the respondent has received a sum of Rs. 37,40,00,000/-, in the months of December' 23 and January' 24. Due to the aforesaid illegal actions of the respondent, the applicants were constrained to move an application under Section 9 of the Act of 1996 before the learned Commercial Court, Raipur, and after considering the same, the learned Commercial Court, vide impugned order dated 06.12.2024, agreed with the prima- facie case of the applicants, however, rejected the application under Section 9 of the Act of 1996, filed by the applicants. 6. Mr. Singhal also submits that the applicants have filed an appeal 5 before this Court bearing ARBA No. 3 of 2025 and the same is pending adjudication. It is further submitted that vide letter dated 12.11.2024, the respondent invoked arbitrator clause and made a reference before the named arbitrator under the JV Agreement and LLP Agreement to adjudicate the disputes arisen. Further, vide letter dated 18.11.2024, the applicants consented to the reference and constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal. However, vide letter dated 18.12.2024, the named Arbitrator has expressed his inability to act as arbitrator and adjudicate the dispute arisen. Thereafter, on 07.01.2025, the respondent proposed name of an arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes arisen and sought consent of the applicants, however, vide letters dated 13.01.2025 and 14.01.2025, both the applicants have rejected the name proposed by the respondent. Hence, the present application. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent relying on the reply on behalf of respondent, opposes this arbitration request application, however, he submits that the respondent will have no objection if any Arbitrator is appointed by this Hon’ble Court for resolving the dispute that has arisen between the parties. 8. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 9. Although three names have been proposed by the counsel for the applicants and four names have been proposed by the counsel for the respondent, there is no consensus between the parties and as such, I am of the opinion that this Court should appoint any retired Judge of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as the Sole Arbitrator. 6 10. Accordingly, Hon’ble Ms. Justice Indu Malhotra, retired Judge of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, is appointed to act as the Sole Arbitrator to resolve the dispute involved between the parties in this Arbitration Request. 11.The Registry is directed to communicate this order to Hon’ble Ms. Justice Indu Malhotra 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 Preeti