1 2026:CGHC:3086 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ARBR No. 2 of 2025 M/s Sri Durgamba Through Its Authorized Signatory Avinash T. S/o Shri Tharanath Shetty Aged About 34, Years Having Its Registered Office At Main Road Kundapura Udupi District - Karnataka 5762201, Karnataka ...Applicant versus Korba Urban Public Transport Society Limited Through Its Secretary Having Its Office At 1st Floor District Trade And Industrial Center Collector Office Korba (C.G.), Chhattisgarh ...Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Harshmander Rastogi, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Vikram Sharma, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 19.01.2026 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. VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.01.21 11:00:00 +0530 2 2. The applicant has prayed for the following relief:- a. It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to constitute an arbitral tribunal comprising with a sole Arbitrator amongst the Hon'ble Retired Judges from the High Court of Chhattisgarh or as this Hon'ble Court may fit in the facts and circumstances of the case and pass such other orders in favor of the applicant including cost of the application. 3. The fact, in brief, as projected by the applicant is that the, Korba Urban Public Transport Society Limited, issued an RFP in 2015 for city bus operations in Korba, pursuant to which the applicant, a proprietorship firm, was selected as L-1 bidder and an agreement dated 19.12.2015 was executed. The applicant was required to operate and maintain 48 buses, ensure fitness, insurance, staffing, safety, reporting, and uninterrupted service, while the respondent retained ownership of the buses. Despite initial compliance, the applicant faced operational challenges due to unavailability of spare parts and increased costs, compounded by the COVID-19 pandemic and nationwide lockdowns, which halted public transport operations and impacted revenue. The applicant repeatedly requested termination under the force majeure clause, financial support, release of upfront contributions, performance security, and payments for services provided during lockdown, but the respondent failed to respond. The respondent subsequently took possession of the buses and depot without notice, attempted unilateral termination of the contract, and threatened forfeiture of deposits, in violation of contractual terms. The applicant filed writ petitions and notices for amicable resolution under the arbitration clause, nominated 3 an arbitrator, and approached this Hon’ble Court for appointment of the arbitrator and interim relief to protect its rights and restrain coercive actions by the respondent, pending adjudication of the disputes 4. Mr. Harshmander Rastogi, learned counsel for the applicant, submits that the applicant is a proprietorship firm engaged in public transportation across India and is represented through its authorised signatory, Mr. Avinash T. that pursuant to an RFP issued by the respondent in 2015 for operation and maintenance of city bus services at Korba, the applicant was declared the L-1 bidder, issued a Letter of Intent dated 01.06.2015, and entered into an agreement dated 19.12.2015 after depositing a performance security of Rs.20,00,000/- and an upfront contribution of Rs.1,28,12,000/-, under which the applicant was required to operate 48 buses provided by the respondent and to ensure their fitness, insurance, staffing, safety, and uninterrupted services; that due to stoppage of bus production by the manufacturer and the unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic, the applicant faced severe operational and financial difficulties and repeatedly sought termination under the force majeure clause, financial assistance, refund/release of the upfront contribution and performance security, and payment of dues for services rendered during the lockdown period, but the respondent failed to respond; that despite continuous correspondence and mitigation proposals, the respondent arbitrarily took possession of the buses and depot, compelled renewal of insurance and permits under coercion, and unilaterally terminated the contract and forfeited amounts without adjudication of the applicant’s dues, in violation of the contractual terms and principles of natural justice; that consequently, the applicant was constrained to file writ petitions, restoration applications, and invoke arbitration under Clause 31 of the 4 agreement by nominating Hon’ble Justice (Retd.) Shri G. Minhajuddin as Sole Arbitrator, and has filed the present application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking interim protection, safeguarding of its rights, and restraint against illegal termination, forfeiture, or blacklisting by the respondent, this Hon’ble Court having exclusive territorial jurisdiction at Korba. 5. Mr. Vikram Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the appellant filed the present application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It is submitted that the appellant was awarded the work of operation and maintenance of urban bus services, under which it was obligated to operate the contracted buses, provide drivers, and maintain facilities for bus maintenance, pursuant to an agreement dated 23.10.2015 for a period of 10 years, i.e., up to 22.10.2025. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the appellant stalled the work and has failed to resume operations even after the expiry of the stipulated period. The respondent issued several notices to the appellant to resume the work, copies of which are filed as Annexure R-1 (Colly), but the appellant did not comply. Thereafter, the respondent terminated the agreement and decided to forfeit the performance security, as per the decision dated 18.06.2024 (page 143 of the petition). The appellant filed an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, which was disposed of on 13.11.2024 granting ex-parte interim protection. It is submitted that the dispute concerns termination of the agreement, which is arbitrable, and in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in ARB.P 24/2024 (M/s Twenty Four Secure Services Pvt Ltd vs Competent Automobiles Company Limited) dated 22.05.2024, even if the agreement provides for a three-member arbitral tribunal, this Hon’ble Court can 5 appoint a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6), relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Union of India vs Singh Builders Syndicate (2009) 4 SCC 523. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. Upon perusal of the joint application filed by the applicant and the respondent under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and considering the submissions of learned counsel for both parties, it is observed that both the applicant and the respondent have mutually agreed to waive the contractual stipulation for constituting a three-member Arbitral Tribunal and are in consensus that the disputes between them may be adjudicated by a sole arbitrator. Learned counsel for the parties have further submitted that they have no objection if a retired Judge of this Court is appointed as the Sole Arbitrator and have specifically suggested Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari (Retd.) for the purpose. In view of the above and in exercise of powers conferred under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, this Court is satisfied that the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator is appropriate for expeditious resolution of the disputes between the parties. 8. In view of the above, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari 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 a retired Judge of this High Court, to act as the Sole Arbitrator for resolving the dispute between the parties before whom the respondent shall be at liberty to raise all his objections, as has been raised herein. 9. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to Hon’ble Mr. Justice 6 Deepak Kumar Tiwari 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 vaibhav