1 2026:CGHC:22339 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ARBR No. 33 of 2026 Ms Dongfang Electronics India Pvt Ltd Through Special P O A Holder Shri T. Ravi, G M Projects, At 1/18, First Cross Street Olympic Colony, Mogappair, Chennai, 600050 ... Applicant versus 1. Chief Engineer EITC (Energy Info Tech Center), Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd, At Shade No. 08, Vidyut Seva Bhawan, CSEB Campus, Danganiya, Raipur C.G. 2. Director Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd, At Shade No. 08, CSPD L, Danganiya, Raipur C.G. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Vinay Nagdev, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 12.05.2026 1. This is an application filed under Section 11(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 had entered into agreement with Respondent No. 02 for "Appointment of System Integrator(SI) cum RTDAS Solution Provider (RTDASP) for RTDAS Implementation under IPDS-IT Project" and Letter of Award (LOA) was provided to the petitioner on 23.03.2020 vide communication numbered 07-01/EITC/IPDS/RTDAS/Tr-259/2707. In furtherance of the said LOA, a PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.05.15 17:55:40 +0530 2 formal agreement was executed by the parties on 15.06.2020 which mentions the LOA, SCC, GCC, etc., to form part of the agreement. The applicant being body corporate is being represented here by its appointed special power of attorney Shri T. Ravi who works as GM Projects with the applicant company. It is brought to the kind knowledge of this Court that with the advent of Covid several conditions were imposed affecting the contract and the work of the applicant as an aftermath of which some dispute arose between the parties. 3. Mr. Vinay Nagdev, learned counsel for the applicant submits that for amicable settlement of dispute, the applicant sent it first notice for such settlement in terms of Clause 9 of the General Conditions of Contract contained in internal page 21 of Annexure A/1. Since no reply was received from the respondent side, the applicant issued notice for inception of arbitration (dated 27.05.2025) in terms of Clause 9.2 of the Special Conditions of Contract (SCC) contained in page 46 of Annexure A/1. Clause 9.2 of SCC requires that a tribunal of 3 arbitrators be constituted with one of them being the umpire. The party was supposed to appoint/nominate one arbitrator of its choice and the 2 appointed/nominated arbitrators were required to appoint the umpire arbitrator with mutual consent. It is also imperative to mention here that it has also been ordained in the agreement that the umpire arbitrator shall necessary be a retired Chief Justice whereas the arbitrators shall necessary be retired High Court judges. Accordingly, the applicant had nominated Retd. Justice Shri Goutam Bhaduri as an arbitrator in its inception notice of A/4 dated 27.05.2025 after which the respondent vide letter dated 10.06.2025 numbered 07-01/EITC/CSDS/478 had acknowledged the inception notice of 27.05.25 and nominated Retd. Justice Shri Nawal Kishore Agarwal as the other arbitrator. After waiting for a period of more than 2 months, when the arbitration proceedings had not been 3 initiated, the applicant issued a request letter on 24.08.2025 to the arbitrators appointed/nominated by the parties and a copy was also sent to respondent No. 01. A separate formal agreement was also executed between the parties on 15.06.20 which incorporated the General Conditions of Contract and the Special Conditions of Contract. The umpire arbitrator has not been nominated/appointed yet which is why the need to file the present application has arose. It is also submitted that all in all, the arbitration proceedings are yet to start even after the lapse of 8 months of the first notice for settlement and hence, it is prayed that this Court may please make some indulgence to further the cause of justice. 4. In view of the forgoing compelling circumstances there is no effective remedy to the applicant except approaching this Court for appointment of an Arbitrator under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as the condition precedent for the application has been satisfied. Accordingly, the applicant is approaching this Court, for appointment of a sole Arbitrator. This Hon'ble Court as per provisions of Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has jurisdiction for the Arbitral Tribunal as the Agreement was executed within the State of Chhattisgarh and the work was to be executed in the territory of the State only i.e., within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. The cause of action arose when the respondents took no action on the amicable settlement notice dated 04.03.2025 and thereafter on 27.05.2025 when the request for inception of arbitrator was sent to the respondents and thereafter the cause of action continues to be in existence. The present application having been filed in aforesaid facts and circumstances is well within the period of limitation in terms of Clause 9.2 of the General Conditions of Contract and in light of the notice for amicable settlement dated 04.03.2025. 5. Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 4 opposes this arbitration request application, however, he submits that the respondents will have no objection if any Arbitrator is appointed by this Hon’ble Court for resolving the dispute that has arisen between the parties. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. 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, 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 Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, who is a retired Chief Justice of Madras High Court and was earlier also a Judge in this High Court may be appointed as the Sole Arbitrator. 8. In view of the above consensus between the learned counsel for the parties, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava retired Chief Justice of the Madras High Court, is appointed 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 Mr. Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava 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