1 2025:CGHC:20571 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ARBR No. 7 of 2025 ACB (India) Limited Through its Authorised Signatory, Registered Office- C- 102, New Multan Nagar, Rohtak Road, New Delhi, Regional Headqurter- Village Chakabura, PO Jawali, District Korba, Chhattisgarh --- Applicant versus South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Through its Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, Registered Office-Seepat Road, Bilaspur, District-Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) ARBR No. 9 of 2025 ACB (India) Limited Through its Authorised Signatory, Registered Office- C- 102, New Multan Nagar, Rohtak Road, New Delhi. Regional Headquarter- Village Chakabura, PO Jawali District Korba, Chhattisgarh --- Applicant Versus South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Through Its Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, Registered Office- Seepat Road, Bilaspur District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) ARBR No. 8 of 2025 ACB India Limited Through Its Authorized Signatory Registered Office- C-102, New Multan Nagar, Rohtak Road, New Delhi Regional Headquarter- Village Chakabura, PO Jawali District Korba, Chhattisgarh PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.05.07 11:05:22 +0530 2 ---Applicant Versus South Eastern Coalfields Ltd Through Its Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, Registered Office Seepat Road, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) ARBR No. 11 of 2025 ACB India Limited Through Its Authorised Signatory, Registered Office - C- 102, New Multan Nagar, Rohtak Road, New Delhi, Regional Headquarter- Village Chakabura, PO Jawali District- Korba, Chhattisgarh ---Applicant Versus South Eastern Coalfields Ltd Through Its Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, Registered Office Seepat Road, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 05.05.2025 1. These are the applications under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an Arbitrator. 2. Since the instant applications i.e. ARBR No. 7 of 2025, ARBR No. 8 of 2025, ARBR No. 9/2025 and ARBR No. 11/2025 involve common facts and issues, they are being considered and decided together. ARBR No. 7 of 2025 is taken as the lead case. 3. In ARBR No. 7/2025 - The facts, in brief, as projected by the applicant are that the applicant i.e. ACB (India) Limited is engaged in washing coal and was permitted to establish a coal washery within the leasehold area of 3 respondent South Eastern Coaalfields Ltd. (for short, the SECL) at Dipka Mine held by it on lease. As a mutual agreement as between the applicant and the respondent, the respondent agreed to permit the applicant to use the said siding admeasuring 4.29 acres of land for dispatch of washed coal and all other by-products obtained from washing of coal, and for the said purpose to dig, sink or construct structures etc. necessary for efficient operation of the railway siding and other works connected to it. A lease deed dated 17.11.2016 was executed as between the applicant and the respondent for grant of the said Junadih Siding No. IV on a long term lease for a period of 20 years from 23.05.2006 subject to the payment of lease rent as agreed between the parties subject to further revision of rates from time to time as agreed. The lease was subject to renewal upon the request of the applicant for a further period as may be agreed between the parties. It shall be pertinent to mention at this juncture that the applicant was previously operating in the name of style of 'M/s Aryan Coal Benefications Pvt. Ltd., which was a company duly registered under the provisions of the Companies Act 1956, underwent a change in name and a fresh certificate of incorporation was issued in the name and style of 'M/s ACB (India) Pvt. Ltd.' on 18.09.2009. The applicant company became a 'public limited company' and underwent a change in its name and style, which subsequently became 'M/s ACB (India) Ltd.' on 01.10.2009. The respondent raised certain illegal demand pertaining to the enhanced lease rent contrary to the lease agreement. The applicant objected to such illegal demands and requested for a strict adherence to the provisions of the lease deed. The revision in the lease rent was permissible every 5 years under Article (d) of the agreement. The lease rent was revised in April 2014 and therefore the revision of rates was permissible only in April 2019, however the respondent claimed rent on revised rates every year. Being compelled 4 the applicant vide letter dated 25.11.2022 invoked the arbitration clause as contained under Article (o) of the agreement and requested the respondent to appoint its Arbitrator. The applicant sent another representation/ applications for appointment of arbitrator to the respondent on 05.04.2023, 12.09.2023 and 16.03.2024, but then the respondent did not appoint any arbitrator nor did they grant any indulgence. Being aggrieved by the arbitrary action of the respondent in not referring the dispute to the Arbitrator for settlement of the dispute and the Applicant having no other recourse or remedy available for redressal of grievance; is constrained to approach this Hon'ble Court for seeking justice; by preferring an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 4. In ARBR No. 8/2025 - The facts, in brief, as projected by the applicant are that a lease deed dated 30.03.2008 was executed as between M/s Spectrum Coal and Power Ltd. and the respondent for grant of the said land on a long term lease for a period of 30 years from 30.03.2008 subject to the payment of lease rent as agreed between the parties subject to further revision of rates from time to time as agreed. M/s Spectrum Coal and Power Ltd. used the said land since 1999. However, the respondent has not given the applicant possession of 15.22 acres of land despite several requests, but then the respondent has been receiving the lease rent for the said land since 1999. The applicant has been requesting the respondent to grant possession of the said 15.22 acres of land to the applicant and further that the lease rent for the entire land was deposited under protest. It shall be pertinent to mention at this juncture that M/s Spectrum Coal and Power Ltd. was undergoing a merger process with its holding company M/s ACB (India) Ltd. and therefore nо objection was sought from the respondent SECL. The M/s Spectrum Coal & Power Ltd. underwent restructuring and the said company stood merged with M/s ACB 5 (India) Ltd. vide order dated 04.02.2020 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal. The applicant vide letter dated 26.02.2020 duly informed the respondent with the completion of the process of merger and with a request to incorporate the name of M/s ACB (India) Ltd. in place of M/s Spectrum Coal & Power Ltd. with respect to the lease deed dated 30.03.2008. The respondent has accepted the lease rent from the applicant since March 2020 without any objection. The applicant again vide letter dated 11.09.2020 raised its objection with regard to non-grant of 15.22 acres of land for which the lease rent was being recovered from the applicant. The applicant even objected that the lease rent was being revised yearly @ 10% from 2014 which was against the terms and conditions of the lease deed agreement. The respondent raised certain illegal demand pertaining to the enhanced lease rent contrary to the lease agreement. The applicant objected to such illegal demands and requested for a strict adherence to the provisions of the lease deed. The revision in the lease rent was permissible every 3 years under Article (d) of the agreement. The lease rent was revised in April 2014 and therefore the revision of rates was permissible only in April 2017, however the respondent claimed on revised rates every year. Being compelled the applicant vide letter dated 19.11.2022 invoked the arbitration clause as contained under Article (o) of the agreement and requested the respondent to appoint its Arbitrator. Applicant sent representations/applications for appointment of arbitrator to the respondent on 05.04.2023, 12.09.2023 and 16.03.2024, but then the respondent did not appoint any arbitrator nor did they grant any indulgence. Being aggrieved by the arbitrary action of the respondent in not referring the dispute to the Arbitrator for settlement of the dispute and the Applicant having no other recourse or remedy available for redressal of grievance; is constrained to approach this Hon'ble Court for seeking justice, by preferring 6 an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Hence, the present Application. 5. In ARBR No. 9/2025 - The facts, in brief, as projected by the applicant are that the applicant i.e. ACB (India) Limited is engaged in washing coal and was permitted to establish a coal washery within the leasehold area of respondent -SECL at Dipka Mine held by it on lease. As a mutual agreement as between the applicant and the respondent, the respondent agreed to permit the applicant to use the said siding admeasuring 5.98 acres of land for dispatch of washed coal and all other by-products obtained from washing of coal, and for the said purpose to dig, sink or construct structures etc. necessary for efficient operation of the railway siding and other works connected to it. A lease deed dated 17.11.2016 was executed as between the applicant and the respondent for grant of the said Junadih Siding No. IIIs on a long term lease for a period of 20 years from 23.08.1999 subject to the payment of lease rent as agreed between the parties subject to further revision of rates from time to time as agreed. The lease was subject to renewal upon the request of the applicant for a further period as may be agreed between the parties. It shall be pertinent to mention at this juncture that the applicant was previously operating in the name of style of 'M/s Aryan Coal Benefications Pvt. Ltd.', which was a company duly registered under the provisions of the Companies Act 1956, underwent a change in name and a fresh certificate of incorporation was issued in the name and style of 'M/s ACB (India) Pvt. Ltd.' on 18.09.2009. The applicant company became a 'public limited company' and underwent a change in its name and style, which subsequently became 'M/s ACB (India) Ltd.' on 01.10.2009. The respondent raised certain illegal demand pertaining to the enhanced lease rent contrary to the lease agreement. The applicant objected to such illegal demands and requested for a strict 7 adherence to the provisions of the lease deed. The revision in the lease rent was permissible every 5 years under Article (d) of the agreement. The lease rent was revised in April 2014 and therefore the revision of rates was permissible only in April 2019, however the respondent claimed rent on revised rates every year. Being compelled the applicant vide letter dated 25.11.2022 invoked the arbitration clause as contained under Article (o) of the agreement and requested the respondent to appoint its Arbitrator. The applicant sent another representation/ applications for appointment of arbitrator to the respondent on 05.04.2023, 12.09.2023 and 16.03.2024, but then the respondent did not appoint any arbitrator nor did they grant any indulgence. Being aggrieved by the arbitrary action of the respondent in not referring the dispute to the Arbitrator for settlement of the dispute and the Applicant having no other recourse or remedy available for redressal of grievance; is constrained to approach this Hon'ble Court for seeking justice; by preferring an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 6. In ARBR No. 11/2025 - The facts, in brief, as projected by the applicant are that a lease deed dated 14.10.1996 was executed as between M/s ST- BSES Coal Washeries Ltd. and the respondent for grant of the said land on a long term lease for a period of 30 years subject to the payment of lease rent as agreed between the parties subject to further revision of rates from time to time as agreed. M/s ST-BSES Coal Washeries Ltd. used the said land since 1996. It shall be pertinent to mention at this juncture that M/s ST- BSES Coal Washeries Ltd. underwent a change of name to M/s ST-CLI Coal Washeries Ltd., which further underwent a change of name to M/s Spectrum Coal & Power Ltd.. M/s Spectrum Coal & Power Ltd. was undergoing a merger process with its holding company M/s ACB (India) Ltd. and therefore no objection was sought from the respondent SECL. The 8 M/s Spectrum Coal and Power Ltd. underwent restructuring and the said company stood merged with M/s ACB (India) Ltd. vide order dated 04.02.2020 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal. The applicant vide letter dated 26.02.2020 duly informed the respondent with the completion of the process of merger and with a request to incorporate the name of M/s ACB (India) Ltd. in place of M/s Spectrum Coal & Power Ltd. with respect to the lease deed dated 30.03.2008. The respondent has accepted the lease rent from the applicant since March 2020 without any objection. The applicant again vide letter dated 11.09.2020 raised its objection that the lease rent was being revised yearly @ 10% from 2014 which was against the terms and conditions of the lease deed agreement. That, respondent raised certain illegal demand pertaining to the enhanced lease rent contrary to the lease agreement. The applicant objected to such illegal demands and requested for a strict adherence to the provisions of the lease deed. The revision in the lease rent was permissible every 3 years under Article (d) of the agreement. The lease rent was revised in April 2014 and therefore the revision of rates was permissible only in April 2017, however the respondent claimed rent on revised rates every year. Being compelled the applicant vide letter dated 17.11.2022 invoked the arbitration clause as contained under Article (o) of the agreement and requested the respondent to appoint its Arbitrator. Applicant sent representations/ applications for appointment of arbitrator to the respondent on 05.04.2023, 12.09.2023 and 16.03.2024, but then the respondent did not appoint any arbitrator nor did they grant any indulgence. Being aggrieved by the arbitrary action of the respondent in not referring the dispute to the Arbitrator for settlement of the dispute and the Applicant having no other recourse or remedy available for redressal of grievance; is constrained to approach this Hon'ble Court for seeking justice, by preferring an application 9 under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Hence, the present Application. 7. Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the respondent relying on the return filed on behalf of respondent, opposes these arbitration request applications, however, he submits that the respondent-SECL will have no objection if any Arbitrator is appointed by this 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. 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 District Judge is appointed as the Sole Arbitrator. They further submit that Mr. Ashok Kumar Panda, who is a retired District Judge may be appointed as the Sole Arbitrator in these arbitration request petitions. 10. In view of the above facts situation of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to appoint Mr. Ashok Kumar Panda, a retired District Judge to act as the Sole Arbitrator to resolve the dispute involved in these arbitration request petitions between the parties. 11. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to Mr. Ashok Kumar Panda, in the proper address. 12. The remuneration of the Arbitrator shall be settled with the mutual consent of the parties. 13. These arbitration request petitions, accordingly, stand allowed. sSd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Preeti