1 2025:CGHC:61702 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 6591 of 2025 Deendayal Sahu S/o Late Shri K. R. Sahu Aged About 64 Years R/o C-11, Mitan Vihar, Daldal Seoni, Raipur, District Raipur C.G. ... Petitioner versus 1 - Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Through Its Chairman, Having Its Registered Office At G-9, Ali Yavar Jung Marg, Bandra, East Mumbai, 400051. 2 - Chief General Manager And State Head, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Madhya Pradesh State Office, Indian Oil Bhawan, 16 Arera Hills, Jail Road, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh. 3 - General Manager I/c (R S) Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Madhya Pradesh, Indian Oil Bhawan, 16 Arera Hills, Jail Road, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh. 4 - Divisional Retail Sales Head, Raipur Divisional Office, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Indian Oil Bhawan, Rajeev Gandhi Marg, V I P Road, Post Office Ravigram, Telibandha, Raipur, District Raipur C.G. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Anand Shukla, Advocate ALFIZA BAIG Digitally signed by ALFIZA BAIG Date: 2025.12.18 14:09:51 +0530 2 Hon’ble Justice Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order on Board 17.12.2025 1. At the outset learned counsel for respondents raises an objection with regard to maintainability of this writ petition on the ground that under the agreement there is an arbitration clause. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that pursuant to the amendment brought in the year 2015 in Section 12 of the Arbitration and Reconciliation Act, the arbitration under clause 62 of agreement is not purposeful Clause 62 of the agreement talks of appointment of sole arbitrator, to one of the officials of respondent company and, therefore, petitioner is having no alternate remedy to avail but to file this writ petition. Further in support of his contention he refers to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Perkins Eastman Architects DPC Vs. HSCC (INDIA) Limited reported in (2020) volume 20 SCC 760. 3. Learned counsel for respondents submits that Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Offshore Infrastructure Limited Vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation, Limited reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 2147 has considered the issue of effect of amendment brought in under Section 12 of the Act of 1996 and it is held that by way of amendment brought in under the Act of 1996 will not result in foregoing of entire arbitration mechanism. The parties are having remedy of filing application under Section 11(6) of the Act of 1996. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents enclosed along with this writ petition. 5. Taking into consideration the submission made by learned counsel for the respective parties and the recent decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Offshore Infrastructures Limited (supra), I am of the considered view that petitioner is having remedy under Section 11(6) of the Act of 1996. Therefore, I am not inclined to entertain this writ 3 petition, accordingly, it is dismissed, reserving liberty with petitioner to avail alternate remedy available to him under the law. Certified copy as per rules. sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge alfiza