M/s Educomp Solutions Limited, v. Directorate of Public Instructions,
ARBR/48/2025 · 2026-02-01
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 16144 (CHH) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 16144 (CHH) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
1
2026:CGHC:5781
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ARBR No. 48 of 2025 M/s Educomp Solutions Limited, Having Its Registered Office At L- 314 (Ground And First Floor), Gali No. 7, Mahipalpur (Near Mata Chowk), New Delhi - 110037 And Corporate Office At 514, Udyog Vihar Phase- III, Gurugram- 122001, Haryana, Through Its Authorized Signatory Mr. Santosh Tiwari, S/o Shri Ram Jawahar Tiwari, Aged 45 Years Working As Senior Manager.
... Applicant versus Directorate Of Public Instructions, Department Of School Education, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Pension Bada, Raipur- 492001 (C.G.)
... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Rishabh Garg, Advocate. (through video- conferencing). For Respondent : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Government Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board 02.02.2026
1. This is an application under Section 11(6)(A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an Arbitrator.
2. At the outset, Mr. Rishabh Garg, learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that earlier the applicant had filed ARBR No. 24 of 2024 in which this Hon’ble Court had been pleased to appoint Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dhirendra Mishra as the Sole Arbitrator with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties.
3. Mr. Garg draws attention to page 94 of the petition which is an order sheet of PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.02.05 14:25:25 +0530
2 the learned Sole Aribtrator which states that during the course of informal
discussion about nature of issues involved in the present dispute, the learned counsel for the respondent had expressed her reservation regarding fairness in the hearing and as such, the learned Arbitrator has recused from the case. It further states that the amount deposited by the Claimant in the Arbitrator’s account has also been returned. As such, a new Arbitrator is required to be appointed.
4. In view of the above, a query was made by this Court as to who can be appointed as Sole Arbitrator in place of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dhirendra Mishra, learned counsel for the parties are in consensus that Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.C.S.Samant, a retired Judge of this High Court may be appointed as the Sole Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties.
5. Accordingly, Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.C.S.Samant, a retired Judge of this High Court is appointed to act as the Sole Arbitrator for resolving the dispute between the parties.
6. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.C.S. Samant at the proper address. The record of the case, received from the earlier Sole Arbitrator, may also be forwarded to Hon’ble Mr. Justice Samant.
7. The remuneration of the Arbitrator shall be settled with the mutual consent of the parties.
8. The arbitration request petition, accordingly, stands allowed.
Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Preeti