1 2026:CGHC:26620 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ARBR No. 39 of 2025 D.B. Power Limited Having Its Registered Office At- Block 1a Corporate Block, CB City Park, Arera Hills Opposite MP Nagar Zone - 1, Bhopal (M.P.) Corporate Office 3rd Floor Naman Corporate Link Opp. Dena Bank C-31 Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra ( East ), Mumbai- 400051 Represented By Shailendra Bajpai S/o Shri D.P. Bajpai, Aged About 43 R/o Village Badadarha, Tehsil Dabhara, Distt- Janjgir- Champa ( C.G. )., Madhya Pradesh ... Applicant versus Tuli Mining Corporation Limited Situated at 3rd Floor, Om Chamber, D-24, Opposite Shriram Tower, Vyapar Vihar, Bilaspur (C.G.), 495001, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Anand Shukla and Ms. Shivali Dubey, Advocate. For Respondent : None. Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 30.06.2026 1. This is an application 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 is a Public Limited Company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act 1956 and is engaged in the business of generation and sale of power. The applicant has setup a 1200 MW (2 x 600 MW) Coal Based Thermal Power Plant at Village Baradarha in District Sakti (earlier Janjgir-Champa) Chhhattisgarh ("Power Plant"). The Power Plant of the applicant comprises PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.07.01 16:09:39 +0530 2 of two units i.e., Unit 1 and Unit 2 of 600 MW and both of the units are presently in commercial operation. The respondent is a Private Limited company engaged, inter-alia, in the business of transportation of coal. The applicant submits that coal is used as a primary fuel for applicant's Generating Units and is procured by the applicant from Coal India Ltd. and its subsidiaries through linkage and e-auction scheme. The applicant issued Work Order dated 10.10.2023 to respondent for lifting and transportation of coal secured from Gevra mines on Road-cum-Rail (RCR) mode through Jairamnagar siding to applicant's Power Plant. The contract was placed upon the respondent with assurance to lift and transport the coal by RCP mode. As per Clause I of the Contract, respondent undertook to provide door to door service and they were solely responsible for lifting and transportation of coal from Gevra Mine to applicant's Power Plant. Further, to issuance of the Contract/Work Order, the respondent failed to transport and deliver the 20,000 MT of coal in terms of the Contract/Work Order. After undue delay the respondent has delivered coal to the tune of 19357.20 MT to applicant's power plant out of total 20000 MT of coal, leaving shortfall of 642.80 MT. To deliver this balance coal, at the request of respondent, the applicant issued Purchase Order dated 11.03.2024 bearing PO No. 7900000861, to the respondent to deliver the remaining 642.80 MT of coal, which in terms of request of the respondent was allowed to be transported through road mode. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that a perusal of the scope of work and the terms and conditions of the Work Order/Contract would show that the respondent were in complete control and custody of the coal, right from the stage of lifting the coal from Gevra mines, transporting by road to Jairamnagar siding and from there delivering the coal to applicant's power plant through rail mode, without any third-party intervention. The respondent not only guaranteed to lift the entire quantum of coal within the validity period 3 of respective delivery orders, but also guaranteed to deliver at applicant's plant, coal having GCV of 3700 kcal/kg on as received basis (ARB). Pursuant to the issuance of the Orders, respondent started lifting and delivering coal through RCR mode from Gevra mines against the delivery orders issued by the SECL. Unfortunately, right from the first consignment, neither the coal lifting requirement was up to the mark resulting in delayed delivery of coal, nor the quality of coal delivered was as guaranteed. The applicant sent various communications to the respondent requesting to improve the lifting of coal as the quantum of lifting was not as agreed. The respondent were also informed that the quality of coal delivered was of inferior quality as against the Contractor guaranteed coal GCV of 3700 kcal/kg. The coal analysis reports clearly show that, the respondent delivered inferior quality of coal which is also evident from the coal analysis report(s) submitted by M/s. CIMFR dated. 12.01.2024 and 15.01.2024, which confirms that the coal lifted from the mine is of better quality as against the quality of coal delivered at the applicant's Power Plant, is of inferior quality which is corroborated by the certificate of coal tested at applicant's Power Plant by accredited agency M/s Mineral Lab Services dated 11.12.2023, 12.01.2024 and 08.02.2024. Based on this, it is evident that good quality coal was lifted by the respondent from the mine but inferior quality coal was delivered to the applicant's Power Plant indulging in mixing and adulteration leading to inferior quality of coal. Even after facilitating supply and transportation of coal through road mode, at the respondent's request, yet the respondent has only delivered 109.33 MT of coal out of the remaining quantity of 642.80 MT of coal under the purchase order dated 11.03.2024 and has miserably failed to transport the remaining quantity of 533.60 MT of coal, which was to be delivered within 15.04.2024. The applicant, vide its e-mail dated 30.04.2024 submitted its claim for compensation in the sum of 4 Rs 4,81,55,931/-towards shortfall in quantity of coal delivered as well as for the inferior quality of coal. Upon the request of the respondent, meeting was called on 09.08.2024 wherein the parties arrived at settlement term as recorded in the paragraph 2 of the minutes of meeting dated 09.08.2024, which is reproduced herein under: "2. Settlement Agreement 2.1 Tuli will deliver the balance 533.60 MT coal of 3700 GCV within 19/09/24 to DBPL Plant at Raigargh. In case coal is of inferior quality then additional quantity shall be delivered by Tuli. For billing, total GCV x Tonnage will be considered. Means the GCV to be delivered by Tuli is 533.60 MT * 3700 K Cal/kg = 1974 x10^6 K cal. Any variation in GCV shall be compensated by change in weight. 2.2Total settlement amount agreed by both the parties is Rs. 105 Lacs [Rupees One Hundred and Five Lacs] This amount will be paid/ adjusted by Tuli in the following manner: 2.2.1 Rs. 10 lacs [Rupees Ten Lacs] shall be transferred to DBPL account by 25th Sept 2024. 2.2.2 DBPL will place an order to Tuli for Supply of 10,000 MT raw coal of GCV 4200 K Cal/Kg at a price of Rs. 1.04 [Rupees One paise four] per GCV per MT landed at Plant [including Cess, GST, transportation, etc.]. Total value of this order will be around Rs. 4.18 Crores [ Rupees Four Crores Eighteen Lacs]. Payment terms shall be 60% on delivery at plant and 40% within 30 days of reconciliation. DBPL shall recover/deduct Rs. 63 Lacs [Rupees Sixty ThreeLacs) from the bills of Tuli against the part of this settlement. 2.2.3 Balance Rs. 32 Lacs shall be recovered as follows: DBPL shall place order on Tuli for transportation of 32,000 MT coal from various mines at prevailing rates [last rate offered by DBPL to other transporters) progressively on receipt of DOs. DBPL shall recover Rs. 100 per MT from the bills of Tuli. Clause no. 2.2.2 and 2.2.3 above shall be done after complying Clause no. 2.1 and 2.2.1 above," 5 4. He further submits that the respondent affirmed their acceptance to the aforementioned terms of settlement vide their mail dated 05.09.2024. Despite of that, in utter disregard to the aforesaid settlement terms, on 19.02.2025, the respondent only delivered 29.99 MT of coal out of balance 533.60 MT of coal. The respondent, have neither delivered the remaining 503.6, MT of coal nor have taken any further steps for implementing the said settlement terms till date. As such the respondent have acted in gross violation of the terms of the Contract as also the assurance and undertakings recorded in the aforesaid settlement terms. In respect of the Contract, the respondent have failed to pay compensation/damages to the applicant in the sum aggregating to Rs 4,85,29,876/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. on the same amount. The applicant addressed claim letter to the respondent vide letter dated 15.01.2025 to settle the dispute by demanding the sum aggregating to Rs 4,85,29,876/-, But the respondent have showed no response. On the same contention the applicant called upon the respondent to settle the Dispute vide dated 12.02.2025, as per method outlined in Clause 21 of the Work Order dated 10.10.2023, by suggesting the name of Shri U.N.S. Deo as sole arbitrator to adjudicate upon the issue, however no response in this line is received from the respondent. 5. Vide order dated 07.08.2025, this Court had directed for issuance of notice to the respondent. The matter was thereafter listed on 15.09.2025. On 02.12.2025, since it was found that the notice issued to the respondent was not served, the petitioner was permitted to serve notice through paper publication in two leading newspapers which had large circulation over the area of District – Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. On 02.12.2025, it was submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that pursuant to the order passed by this Court paper publication was made, but despite that the respondent has chosen not to appear. Today, when the matter is being taken up, none 6 appears nor is any representation made of behalf of the respondent. 6. Since an affidavit has been filed in support of I.A. No. 4/2026 which is an application for taking paper publication on record, from perusal of the same, it is evident that paper publication has been made in two leading newspapers having wide circulation over the over the area of District – Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh where the Office of the respondent is situated. Despite having being notice served, the respondent has not appeared nor is there any opposition to the arbitration request, and further having regard to the fact that Clause 21 provides for the mechanism for resolution of the dispute through arbitration. 7. The Arbitration provision in the Contract provide for appointment of Sole Arbitrator jointly by the parties. Clause 21 of the Work Order dated 10.10.2023 provides for referring the dispute/differences between the parties to Arbitration reads as under: "21 Arbitration: Any dispute(s) / difference(s) arising out of or in relation to this contract that cannot be settled amicably will be referred to Arbitration of Sole arbitrator to be appointed jointly by the parties hereto. The award of arbitrator will be final and binding on both the parties. The arbitration will be carried out in accordance with the provisions of India Arbitration and conciliation act of 1996 read with its amendments from time to time. Work under this contract will be continued by you during the arbitration proceedings unless otherwise directed in writing by us or unless the matter is such that the work cannot possibly be continued until the decision of the arbitrators obtained and save as those which are otherwise expressly provided in the contract, no payment due and payable by us shall be withheld on account of such arbitration proceedings, unless it is the subject matter or one of the subject matter thereof. The venue of the arbitration will be Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh." 8. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 9. A query was put to learned counsel appearing for the applicant as to who 7 may be appointed as Arbitrator for resolving the dispute existing between the parties, Mr. Shukla 10. submits that Hon’ble Mr. Justice G. Minhajuddin, who is a retired Judge of this High Court may be appointed as the Sole Arbitrator. 11. In view of the above facts situation of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to appoint Hon’ble Mr. Justice G. Minhajuddin, a retired Judge of this High Court to act as the Sole Arbitrator to resolve the dispute involved in this arbitration request between the parties. 12. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to Hon’ble Mr. Justice G. Minhajuddin in the proper address. 13. The remuneration of the Arbitrator shall be settled with the mutual consent of the parties. 14. The arbitration request petition, accordingly, stands allowed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti