1 2025:CGHC:59476 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ARBR No. 34 of 2025 M/s Rakesh Kumar Jain Having Office B 101, Block B, Vaishali Enclave, Tikrapara, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, Represented Through Its Authorized Partner Shri Prince Jain, S/o Shri Rakesh Kumar Jain, Aged About 37 Years, R/o A/12, Rama World, Raipur Road, Tifra, Tahsil and District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1. Union of India Through Its General Manager, South East Central Railways, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 2. Senior Divisional Engineer (Central) South East Central Railways, Nagpur Maharastra. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Nishant Bhanushali, Advocate. For Respondent/UOI : Mr. R.K.Mishra, Deputy Solicitor General. Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 08.12.2025 1. This is an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, “the Act of 1996”) for appointment of an arbitrator. 2. The applicant has prayed for the following relief(s): a. Appoint a Sole arbitrator as per the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for resolution of the disputes referred by the Applicant to the arbitration agreement contained in the Contract. PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.12.15 18:15:38 +0530 2 b. Pass any such other order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.” 3. The brief facts of this case is that the applicant is a registered partnership firm and is inter-alia, engaged in the activity of civil construction and track work with different divisions of Railways for last more than three decades. Respondent No. 1 is a zone of Indian Railways situated in the Central India having its office at Bilaspur (CG) and is serving the states of Chhattisgarh, Orissa, Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra and has rejected the applicant's request for constitution of Arbitral Tribunal. Respondent No. 2 is its officer and signatory of the contract with the applicant. Respondent No. 2 invited a bid for the work of "Construction of Limited Height Subway in lieu of A class manned level crossing No. 530 at Km. 1044/11-13 between Tumsar and Mundikota station on Durg-Nagpur main line under the jurisdiction of Sr. DEN/Central/Nagpur by box pushing technique. The applicant had also participated in the tender and upon becoming the successful bidder, the Letter of Acceptance was issued on 12.11.2018 for the Contract Value of Rs. 3,66,69,058.99/-. The work was to be completed within the period of 12 months. Subsequently, the Contract Agreement was signed between the applicant and respondent No.3 on 07.11.2019. Since the inception of the Contract, the work was being delayed due to the reasons not attributable to the applicant, namely, delay due to absence of work fronts, delay in cable clearance, delay in handing over of land to construct connecting roads, delay in issuance of drawings, delay in non-availability of RDSO approved B0 grade steel the original Contract Period has been extended by the respondent from time to time and the work of 12 months, got completed with a delay of 55 months. The dispute arose when the respondent imposed penalties and deprived the applicant from claiming PVC, the applicant informed the respondent due to idling of man and machinery, delay in 3 making payments of running bills, loss of profit, and other claims where submitted, which neither denied nor decided by the competent authority, which gave rise the disputed between the applicant and respondent, to resolve the dispute as per arbitration clause-64 of GCC and other relevant clause. 4. Learned counsel submits that on 01.06.2024, the applicant has served notice of invocation of arbitration clause to respondents, by way of notice the applicant requested respondents to appoint an independent Arbitrator, preferably a retired judicial officer, to decide all the disputes and differences that have arisen between the parties, however the respondent has failed to appoint an Arbitrator. Clauses 64 of General Conditions of Contract, 2018 provides for settlement of disputes. The respondent vide its letter dated 11.06.2024 requested the Claimant to give its option regarding waiver of Section 12 (5) of the Act of 1996. The applicant vide its letter dated 14.06.2024, did not agreed to waive off the applicability of Section 12 (5) of the Act of 1996. The respondent vide its letter dated 13.11.2024, informed the applicant that Competent Authority has decided that the Arbitral Tribunal cannot be constituted in the instant case. In view of the forgoing compelling circumstances there is no effective remedy to the applicant except approaching this Hon'ble Court for appointment of an independent Arbitrator under Section 11 (6) of the Act of 1996 as the condition precedent for the application has been satisfied as the respondent without assigning any reason failed to appoint the arbitrator at the request by the applicant, statutory period for appointment arbitrator is expired. Accordingly, the applicant is approaching this Hon'ble Court, for appointment of a sole Arbitrator. This Hon'ble Court as per provisions of Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has jurisdiction for the Arbitral Tribunal as the office of the Respondent No.1 which refused to appoint the Arbitrator 4 is located in Bilaspur as such this Hon'ble Court has jurisdiction to entertain the present Application. The cause of action to file the present application had arisen when the respondent had failed to appoint an Arbitrator upon the request being made by the applicant. That the present application having been filed in aforesaid facts and circumstances are well within the period of limitation. Accordingly, the applicant has filed the present application to pray to this Hon'ble Court to appoint a fit and proper person as Arbitrator, under Clause 64 of the General Conditions of Contract and under section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, in view of the failure on the part of the Respondent to appoint the arbitrator. The applicant has not filed any other petition regarding appointment of an Arbitrator under the Arbitration Agreement contained in Agreement dated 11.07.2019. Appoint a Sole arbitrator as per the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for resolution of the disputes referred by the Applicant to the arbitration agreement contained in the Contract. 5. Learned Deputy Solicitor General, appearing for the respondents/Union of India, relying on the counter affidavit filed, though opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants, and submits that the contractual agreement was executed between the applicant and the respondent within the territorial limits of Nagpur Division of South East Central Railway. The subject work was also executed within Nagpur jurisdiction as is evident from documents filed as Annexure A/3. Therefore, no part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The mere fact that the respondent No. 1 Headquarter is located at Bilaspur does not vest jurisdiction in this Hon’ble Court. 6. Mr. Mishra, learned Deputy Solicitor General further submits that in an identical matter, vide order dated 15.09.2025, being ARBR No. 36/2025 arising between the same parties, this Court has appointed Hon’ble Mr. 5 Justice V.K.Shrivastava, a retired Judge of this High Court to act as Sole Arbitrator, and as such, this matter may also be referred to him. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto 8. Since this Court has already referred a similar dispute between the parties in ARBR No. 36/2025 vide order dated 15.09.2025 to the Sole Arbitration of Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K.Shrivastava, a retired Judge of this High Court, I am of the view that it would be proper that in this case also, Hon’ble Mr. Justice V. K. Shrivastava be appointed as Sole Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties. 9. In view of the above, Hon’ble Mr. Justice V. K. Shrivastava a retired Judge of this High Court is appointed to act as the Sole Arbitrator to resolve the dispute involved in this arbitration request between the parties. 10. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to Hon’ble Mr. Justice V. K. Shrivastava in the proper address. 11. The remuneration of the Arbitrator shall be settled with the mutual consent of the parties. 12. The arbitration request petition, accordingly, stands allowed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti