1 2025:CGHC:54657 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ARBR No. 45 of 2025 M/s Shukla Construction Bhilai Through Its Proprietor Abhay Kumar Shukla, Aged About 53 Years, S/o Late Shri Ravindra Shukla, R/o Plot No. 16 and 29, Sunder Vihar Colony, Kurud, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.), --- Applicant versus 1. Steel Authority of India Limited, Bhilai Steel Plant Through Its Chief General Manager, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) Pin 490001 2. Assistant General Manager Public Health Department, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) 3. The Director In Charge 2nd Floor Ispat Bhawan, SAIL, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) --- Respondents ARBR No. 47 of 2025 M/s Shukla Construction Bhilai Aged About 53 Years Through Its Proprietor Abhay Kumar Shukla, S/o Late Shri Ravindra Shukla, R/o Plot No. 16 and 29, Sunder Vihar Colony, Kurud, Bhilai, District - Durg (C.G.), ---Applicants Versus 1. Steel Authority of India Limited, Bhilai Steel Plant Through Its Chief General Manager, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, District - Durg (C.G.) Pin 490001 2. Assistant General Manager, Public Health Department, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, District - Durg (C.G.) 3. The Director-In-Charge, 2nd Floor Ispat Bhawan, SAIL, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) --- Respondents ARBR No. 42 of 2025 M/s Shukla Construction Bhilai Through Its Proprietor Abhay Kumar Shukla, Aged About 53 Years, S/o Late Shri Ravindra Shukla, R/o Plot No. 16 and 29, Sunder Vihar Colony, Kurud, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.), ---Applicant PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.11.11 18:59:25 +0530 2 Versus 1. Steel Authority of India Limited Through Its Chief General Manager, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, District - Durg (C.G.) Pin 49001 2. Assistant General Manager, Public Health Department, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, District - Durg (C.G.) 3. The Director-In-Charge 2nd Floor Ispat Bhawan, SAIL, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, District- Durg (C.G.) --- Respondents ARBR No. 44 of 2025 Ms Shukla Construction Bhilai Through Its Proprietor Abhay Kumar Shukla, Aged About 53 Years, S/o Late Shri Ravindra Shukla, R/o Plot No. 16 and 29, Sunder Vihar Colony, Kurud, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.), ---Applicant Versus 1. Steel Authority of India Limited, Bhilai Steel Plant Through Its Chief General Manager, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) Pin 490001 2. Assistant General Manager, Public Health Department, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) 3. The Director-In-Charge, 2nd Floor Ispat Bhawan, SAIL, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, District - Durg (C.G.) --- Respondents ARBR No. 43 of 2025 Ms Shukla Construction Bhilai Through Its Proprietor Abhay Kumar Shukla Aged About 53 Years R/o Plot No. 16 and 29, Sunder Vihar Colony, Kurud, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.), ---Applicant Versus 1. Steel Authority of India Limited, Through Its Chief General Manager, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, District- Durg (C.G.) 490001 2. Assistant General Manager, Public Health Department, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, District - Durg (C.G.) 3. The Director-In-Charge, 2nd Floor Ispat Bhawan, SAIL, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, District - Durg (C.G.) --- Respondents ARBR No. 32 of 2025 Ms Shukla Construction Bhilai Abhay Kumar Shukla Aged About 53 Years Through Its Proprietor Abhay Kumar Shukla R/o Plot No. 16 and 29, Sunder Vihar Colony, Kurud, Bhilai, District - Durg (C.G.) ---Applicant Versus 1. Steel Authority of India Limited Bhilai Steel Plant Through Its Chief General Manager, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) Pin 490001 3 2. Assistant General Manager, Public Health Department, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) 3. The Director-In-Charge 2nd Floor Ispat Bhawan, SAIL, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, District - Durg (C.G.) --- Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Bharat Lal Dembra, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Sabyasachi Bhaduri, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 10.11.2025 1. These are the applications under Sections 11(5) and (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an Arbitrator. 2. Since the instant applications i.e. ARBR No. 32 of 2025, ARBR No. 42 of 2025, ARBR No. 43/2025, ARBR No. 44/2025, ARBR No.45/2025 and ARBR No. 47/2025 involve common facts and issues, they are being considered and decided together. ARBR No. 45 of 2025 is taken as the lead case. 3. In ARBR No. 45/2025 - The facts, in brief, as projected by the applicant are that the applicant is proprietor of M/s Shukla Construction Company, and he is engaged in a construction work and used to take work under the tender from the respondent authorities from time to time. Vide contract No. CCNW/PO-4270009898/PR No. 1130015918 dated 12.08.2020 for "Renovation of ED (Mines) wing at 5th floor of Ispat Bhawan" for the value of Rs.8,08,650.94, without GST was awarded to the applicant and thereafter, the same was amended. In compliance of above letter, the applicant has submitted and completed entire formalities as mentioned in the letter and started work. As per tender documents the clause with reference to execute the agreement it amount of contract will more than 50 Lakhs than only consent and stamp duty for execution of agreement is required. As the dispute with regard to contract the applicant has sent one month notice for 4 appointment of arbitrator vide notice dated 12.02.2024 and 02.09.2024 but despite the said notice the respondent has failed to appoint the arbitrator. As per general conditions of the contract issued by the SAIL there is arbitration clause 20.2. As per the General Condition of contract in tender matter the applicant has already sent notice for appointment of Sole Arbitrator and also requested several times but the respondent authorities failed to appoint the arbitrator therefore this petition is being filed. The applicant has availed all the remedy available as per tender/contract and therefore an arbitrator is required to be appointed by this Hon'ble Court in accordance with Law. 4. In ARBR No. 32/2025 - The facts, in brief, as projected by the applicant are that the applicant is proprietor of M/s Shukla Construction Company, and he is engaged in a construction work and used to take work under the tender from the respondent authorities from time to time. Vide contract No. CC- NW/PO-4270009906/PR No.1130015906 dated 12.08.2020 for "Maintenance of Runway and shoulders at Nandani Airfield, Bhilai" for the value of Rs. 08,68,975.48, without GST for the period from 29.06.2020 to 28.06.2021 was awarded to the applicant. In compliance of above letter, the applicant has submitted and completed entire formalities as mentioned in the letter and started work. As per tender documents the clause with reference to execute the agreement it amount of contract will more than 50 Lakhs than only consent and stamp duty for execution of agreement is required. As the dispute with regard to contract the applicant has sent one month notice for appointment of arbitrator vide notice dated 12.02.2024 & 02.09.2024 but despite the said notice the respondent has failed to appoint the arbitrator. As per general conditions of the contract issued by the SAIL there is arbitration clause 20.2. The action of the respondent authorities is illegal, and bad in law by not resolving dispute of the applicant despite several request which forces the applicant to approach this Court. As per 5 the General Condition of contract in tender matter the applicant has already sent notice for appointment of Sole Arbitrator and also requested several times but the respondent authorities failed to appoint the arbitrator therefore this petition is being filed. The applicant has availed all the remedy available as per tender/contract and therefore an arbitrator is required to be appointed by this Hon'ble Court in accordance with Law. 5. In ARBR No. 42/2025 - The facts, in brief, as projected by the applicant are that the applicant is proprietor of M/s Shukla Construction Company, and he is engaged in a construction work and used to take work under the tender from the respondent authorities from time to time. Vide contract No. CC-W/PO-4270011615/T&D-Civil & Utility/LTR/430354 dated 22.10.2021 for construction of Walkway near Railway Tracks of T & D for the value of Rs. 28,66,374.63 without GST for the period from 28.10.2021 to 27.10.2022 was allotted to the applicant. In compliance of above letter the applicant has submitted and completed entire formalities as mentioned in the letter and started work. As per tender documents the clause with reference to execute the agreement it amount of contract will more than 50 Lakhs than only consent and stamp duty for execution of agreement is required. As the dispute with regard to contract the petitioner has sent one month notice for appointment of arbitrator vide notice dated 12.02.2024 & 02.09.2024 but despite the said notice the respondent has failed to appoint the arbitrator. As per general conditions of the contract issued by the SAIL there is arbitration clause 20.2. As per the General Condition of contract in tender matter the petitioner has already sent notice for appointment of Sole Arbitrator and also requested several times but the respondent authorities failed to appoint the arbitrator therefore this petition is being filed. The applicant has availed all the remedy available as per tender/contract and therefore an arbitrator is required to be appointed by this Hon'ble Court in 6 accordance with Law. 6. In ARBR No. 43/2025 - The facts, in brief, as projected by the applicant are that the applicant is proprietor of M/s Shukla Construction Company, and he is engaged in a construction work and used to take work under the tender from the respondent authorities from time to time. Vide contract No. CCNW/PO-4270010721/PR no. 1130017294/123 dated 15.02.2021 for "Providing and fixing of M.S.Grills in balance portion of Centre Divider in Central Avenue of Bhilai Township" for the value of Rs. 25,64,940.26 without GST for the period from 22.02.2021 to 21.02.2022 was awarded to the applicant and thereafter the same was amended as per agreement dated 05.08.2021. In compliance of above letter, the applicant has submitted and completed entire formalities as mentioned in the letter and started work. As per tender documents the clause with reference to execute the agreement it amount of contract will more than 50 Lakhs than only consent and stamp duty for execution of agreement is required. As the dispute with regard to contract the applicant has sent one month notice for appointment of arbitrator vide notice dated 12.02.2024 & 02.09.2024 but despite the said notice the respondent has failed to appoint the arbitrator. As per general conditions of the contract issued by the SAIL there is arbitration clause 20.2 and extract copy of same is being filed herewith. As per the General Condition of contract in tender matter the applicant has already sent notice for appointment of sole arbitrator and also requested several times but the respondent authorities failed to appoint the arbitrator therefore this petition is being filed. The applicant has availed all the remedy available as per tender/contract and therefore an arbitrator is required to be appointed by this Hon'ble Court in accordance with Law. 7. In ARBR No. 44/2025 - The facts, in brief, as projected by the applicant are that the applicant is proprietor of M/s Shukla Construction Company, and he 7 is engaged in a construction work and used to take work under the tender from the respondent authorities from time to time. Vide contract No. CC-NW/PO-4270007800/PR No. 1130013626/797 dated 12.03.2019 for Execution of Work "Bush Cutting job in Bhilai Township" was awarded to the petitioner. It is further submitted that the above work is to be completed and time limit has been prescribed from 30.01.2019 to 29.01.2021 and subsequently thereafter it was extended upto 28.02.2022. The value of above work is assessed as Rs. 3,490,834.80. In compliance of above letter the applicant has submitted and completed entire formalities as mentioned in the letter and started work. As per policy of SAIL if amount of contract is less than 50 Lakhs than no consent on stamp paper is required and formally the respondent authority has issued letter as per agreement dated 12.03.2019 which is being annexed herewith as Annexure A/2. As the dispute arose with regard to above contract, the petitioner has sent one month notice for appointment of arbitrator vide notice dated 09.11.2022 as per instruction of SAIL. Pursuant to above notice the respondent authorities have issued agreement for settlement of dispute by arbitrator on 28.11.2022 and also appointed arbitrator. Thereafter, no any action has been taken by the arbitrator therefore again the applicant wrote a letter to the authorities on 24.11.2023 but till date no action has been taken. As per general conditions of the contract issued by the SAIL there is arbitration clause 20.2. As the applicant is suffering financial loss and amount is not releasing the respondent authorities therefore the applicant has no any other option except to file instant petition for appointment of arbitrator before this Hon'ble Court. As per the General Condition of contract in tender matter the applicant has already sent notice for appointment of sole arbitrator and despite appointment of arbitrator neither any notice nor any proceedings were initiated till date hence this request is being made. The applicant has 8 availed all the remedy available as per tender/contract and therefore an arbitrator is required to be appointed by this Hon'ble Court in accordance with Law. 8. In ARBR No. 47/2025 - The facts, in brief, as projected by the applicant are that the petitioner is proprietor of M/s Shukla Construction Company, and is engaged in a construction work and used to take work under the tender from the respondent authorities from time to time. Vide contract No. CC-W/PO-4270012289/Civil Engg. Deptt/LTR/1392 dated 23.04.2022 for "Civil Work for extension of line 159A at SMS-3 & BRM" for the value of Rs. 13,64,999.99, without GST for the period from 25.04.2022 to 24.07.2022 was allotted to the applicant. In compliance of above letter, the applicant has submitted and completed entire formalities as mentioned in the letter and started work. As per tender documents the clause with reference to execute the agreement it amount of contract will more than 50 Lakhs than only consent and stamp duty for execution of agreement is required. As the dispute with regard to contract the applicant has sent one month notice for appointment of arbitrator vide notice dated 12.02.2024 but despite the said notice the respondent has failed to appoint the arbitrator. As per general conditions of the contract issued by the SAIL there is arbitration clause 20.2 and extract copy of same is relevant being filed herewith. As per the General Condition of contract in tender matter the petitioner has already sent notice for appointment of sole arbitrator and also requested several times but the respondent authorities failed to appoint the arbitrator therefore this petition is being filed. The applicant has availed all the remedy available as per tender/contract and therefore an arbitrator is required to be appointed by this Hon'ble Court in accordance with law. 9. Mr. Sabyasachi Bhaduri, learned counsel for the respondent {in ARBR No.45/2025}, placing reliance on the return filed, submits that the present 9 reply is being filed on behalf of Respondent No. 3, i.e., Director-Incharge, Steel Authority of India Ltd, Bhilai Steel Plant. Respondent No.2 is not related to the present dispute however, the applicant has impleaded Respondent No.2 – Assistant General Manager, Public Health Department, Bhilai Steel Plant as a party to the present proceedings. However, Respondent No.2 has no privity of contract with the applicant in respect of Work Order No. CCNW/PO-4270009898/PR No. 1130015918 dated 12.08.2020 as this contract does not belong to Public Health Department. The applicant has impleaded "Chief General Manager, Bhilai Steel Plant" as Respondent No.1. However, Bhilai Steel Plant has several Chief General Managers heading different departments. The description of Respondent No.1 is therefore vague, non-specific, and does not identify the concerned contracting authority. The present arbitration request petition is misconceived and not maintainable in law. The alleged notices dated 12.02.2024 do not constitute valid invocation of arbitration under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as no quantified claims or details of dispute were furnished. The contract in question is of value ( Rs.8,08,650.94 without GST). The applicant's own notice dated 12.02.2024 (filed as Annexure A/3 to the petition) specifically invoked Clause 93 of the General Conditions of Contract (GCC) as the arbitration clause applicable to the present contract. In the present petition, however, the Petitioner has relied upon and annexed an entirely different arbitration clause (Clause 20.2), which is not part of the contract in question. The respondent admits that the applicant is proprietor of M/s Shukla Construction Company and has been awarded contracts from time to time through tender. It is admitted that contract dated 12.08.2020 for "Renovation of ED (Mines) wing at 5th floor of Ispat Bhawan" for a value of J8,08,650.94 (without GST) was awarded. It is denied that the applicant duly complied 10 with formalities in time. The commencement of work was delayed due to the Petitioner's default. The applicant is attempting to raise technical points that have no bearing on the contractual breaches committed by him. The alleged notices are vague and do not set out a legally sustainable claim. Respondent was under no obligation to appoint an arbitrator on the basis of such defective notices. It is denied that as per General Condition of contract issued by SAIL there is arbitration clause 20.2. The contractor, vide his own letter dated 22.04.2022, categorically declared the actual date of completion as 24.01.2021 and simultaneously signed the Final Deviation Statement (FDS), attributing the delay in submission to personal/family issues. On his own admission, therefore, he cannot dispute the completion date. The FDS was duly processed by the department on 20.06.2022 and approved by the competent authority on 16.07.2022, demonstrating that the department acted promptly upon the contractor's submission. It is a matter of record that the contractor submitted IR clearance only up to 14.01.2021. Since he himself claimed the actual completion on 24.01.2021, the statutory IR clearance for the balance period 15.01.2021 to 24.01.2021 is a mandatory pre-condition under the contract for processing of the final bill. Despite repeated reminders, the contractor has failed to produce the clearance, thereby frustrating the department's ability to process the final bill. 10. Mr. Bhaduri further submits that similar stand has been taken by the respondent in all the other arbitration requests. However, he submits that the respondent will have no objection if any Arbitrator is appointed by this Court for resolving the dispute that has arisen between the parties. 11. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 12. 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, 11 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 Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.C.S. Samant, who is a retired Judge of this High Court may be appointed as the Sole Arbitrator. 13. Accordingly, this Court appoints Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.C.S. Samant, a retired Judge of this High Court, to act as the Sole Arbitrator for resolving the dispute between the parties before whom the respondent may raise all his objections, as has been raised herein. 14. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.C.S. Samant in the proper address. 15. The remuneration of the Arbitrator shall be settled with the mutual consent of the parties. 16. These arbitration request petitions, accordingly, stand allowed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti