1 2025:CGHC:57340 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ARBR No. 43 of 2024 M/s Chhattisgarh Power And Coal Beneficiation Limited Through Its Director, Mr. Shikhar Agrawal, Having Its Registered Office At, Agrawal Bhawan, Vidhya Nagar, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 495001., Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus M/s Rukhmai Infrastructures Private Limited Through Its Directors, Having Registered Office At, Plot No. 163, Sugandh, 1st Floor, Near Lendra Park, Ramdaspeth, Nagpur, Maharashtra - 440010., Maharashtra … Respondent For applicant : Mr. Ankit Singhal, Advocate. For respondent(s) : None. Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 25.11.2025 1. This is an application under Section 11(5) and (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an Arbitrator. 2. The facts, in brief, as projected by the applicant are that the applicant as well as the respondent are Companies incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 (as amended). On 17.04.2023, the applicant and the respondent, entered into a consortium agreement with the object to participate in the tenders floated by M. P. Power Generation Company Ltd., Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd. and Gujarat State Electricity Corporation Ltd. and successfully execute the same as a consortium, if the PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.11.27 11:03:21 +0530 2 tender is awarded. As per the terms and conditions of the said consortium agreement, applicant was required to pay the respondent an amount of Rs. 50/- per MT of coal washed, if the any tender is awarded in favour of the consortium. On 27.09.2023, Gujarat State Electricity Corporation Limited (for short, the GSECL) floated a tender for Beneficiation (Washing) of RoM G-11 (4000-4300) band Coal and Supply of Washed Coal to Ukai Power Station of GSECL. The applicant expressed its interest to participate in the aforesaid tender issued by Gujarat State Electricity Corporation Limited, on the strength of the consortium agreement executed between the applicant and the respondent. However, to the shock and surprise of the applicant, before it could participate in the aforesaid tender floated by GSECL, vide letter dated 11.11.2023, the respondent unilaterally, arbitrarily and illegally opted to terminate the consortium has not been successful since no tender work has been awarded till date. Agreement dated 17.04.2023, on the pretext that the consortium has not been successful since no tender work has been awarded till dated. Since not much time was left to participate in the aforesaid tender floated by GSECL, the applicant was constrained to find a new consortium partner and as such, on 22.11.2023, the applicant executed a new consortium agreement with M/s MDCWL Limited, however, due to urgency caused on account of the respondent's sudden illegal and unilateral termination, the applicant had to agree to pay to M/s MDCWL Limited an amount of Rs. 75/- per MT coal washed. The applicant with its new consortium partner successfully participated in the aforesaid tender floated by Gujarat State Electricity Corporation Limited and on 16.03.2024, Letter of Intent for Beneficiation (Washing) of RoM G-11 (4000-4300) band Coal and Supply of Washed Coal to Ukai Power Station of GSECL for a quantity of 50,000 MT per month for a period of 2 years has been issued in favour of the applicant by Gujarat State Electricity Corporation Limited. 3 3. Mr. Ankit Singhal, learned counsel for the applicant submits that due to the illegal and unilateral act of the respondent, the applicant has suffered loss of Rs. 25/- per MT coal washed, which amounts to Rs. 3,00,00,000/- as per total quantity of 50,000 MT per month for a period of 2 years issued by GSECL, which the respondent is required to pay and make good on the loss suffered by the applicant, as such, on 30.03.2024, the applicant sent a legal notice to the respondent calling upon it to pay damages amounting to Rs. 3,00,00,000/- suffered by the applicant on account of the unilateral termination of the consortium agreement dated 17.04.2023 by the respondent. Since no response was received by the applicant, on 12.08.2024, the applicant sent a notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 invoking arbitration clause being Clause 25 of the Consortium Agreement dated 17.04.2023 to settle the dispute arisen between the parties, by way of arbitration and sought consent of the respondent for the name of the Sole Arbitrator proposed by the applicant. A period of 30 days was granted to the respondent to give its consent. A period of more than 30 days has passed, however, the respondent has failed to give its consent to the name of the sole arbitrator proposed by the applicant and has not even replied to the said notice. Hence, the present application. 4. Vide order dated 09.12.2024, this Court had directed for issuance of notice to the respondent. The matter was thereafter listed on 17.02.2025 since it was found that the notice issued to the respondent was still awaited, on 11.08.2025, the applicant was permitted to serve notice to the respondent through paper publication in two leading newspapers which had large circulation over the area of Nagpur, Maharashtra. On 25.11.2025, it was submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that pursuant to the order passed by this Court, paper publication was made, but despite that, the 4 respondent has chosen not to appear. It was made clear that in case the respondent fails to appear on the said date, the Court would proceed with the matter on merits. Today, when the matter is being taken up, none appears nor is any representation made of behalf of the respondent. 5. Since an affidavit has been filed in support of I.A. No. 1 of 2025 which is an application for taking paper publication on record, from perusal of the same, it is evident that paper publication has been made in two leading newspapers having wide circulation over the area of Nagpur, Maharashtra where the Office of the respondent is situated, it is presumed that service of notice is complete. Despite having being served, the respondent has neither appeared nor is there any opposition to the arbitration request, and further having regard to the fact that Clause 25 of the Consortium Agreement dated 17.04.2023 provides for settlement of disputes by way of arbitration, this Court deems it appropriate to appoint any retired High Court Judge as Arbitrator. 6. For ready reference Clause 25 of the Consortium Agreement dated 17.04.2023 is quoted as under: "25. Applicable Law and Settlement of Disputes This Agreement and the rights and obligations of the parties hereafter shall be construed and interpreted in accordance with Indian Substantive and Procedural law, applicable to Agreements made and to be performed entirely therein. The Parties shall attempt in good faith to resolve any dispute, difference or claim arising out of or in relation to this Agreement through mutual discussion, In case it is not resolved within thirty (30) days from receipt of the written notice (setting out the dispute or claim) by the other party dispute through Arbitration. All disputes between parties shall be subject to exclusive jurisdiction of the Bilaspur only. Arbitration: any and all disputes ("Disputes") arising out of or in relation to or in connection with this 5 Agreement between the Parties or relating to the performance or non-performance of the rights and obligations set forth herein or the breach, termination, invalidity or interpretation thereof shall be referred for arbitration in Nagpur, India in accordance with the terms of Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or any amendments thereof. The language used in the arbitral proceedings shall be English. Arbitration shall be conducted by a sole arbitrator, who shall be appointed by the Company only. The sole arbitrator shall be appointed as per the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation, Act, 1996. The arbitral award shall be in writing and shall be final and binding on each party and shall be enforce able in any court of competent jurisdiction." 7. A query was put to learned counsel appearing for the applicant as to who may be appointed as Arbitrator for resolving the dispute existing between the parties, Mr. Sighal submits that Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Pushpa Ganediwala, Former Judge of the Bombay High Court, may be appointed as Arbitrator. 8. In view of the above facts situation of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to appoint Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Pushpa Ganediwala, Former Judge, Bombay High Court, to act as the Sole Arbitrator to resolve the dispute involved in this arbitration request between the parties. 9. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to Hon’ble Justice Mrs. Pushpa Ganediwala, in the proper address. 10. The remuneration of the Arbitrator shall be settled with the mutual consent of the parties. 11. The arbitration request petition, accordingly, stands allowed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti