1 CGHC010079952026 2026:CGHC:29376 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ARBR No. 11 of 2026 M/s B.R. Singh Bhadouria Through Its Proprietor Shrikumar Singh S/o Late B.R. Singh Bhadouria, Aged About 72 Years, R/o Thakur Para, Nakulnagar, Dakshin Bastar Dantewada, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Chief Engineer, Pwd (National Highways Zone),Raipur 2 - The Superintending Engineer PWD (National Highway Circle), Raipur 3 - The Executive Engineer PWD (National Highway Division), jagdalpur ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Mr. Saumya Rai, Deputy Government Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 13.07.2026 1. This is an application under Section 11(6) read with Section 11(5) 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 an 'A-Class' registered contractor and a proprietorship firm engaged in the execution of major civil and infrastructure construction works across the country. The applicant has extensive experience in executing national highway projects and has been awarded numerous public works contracts by the State of Chhattisgarh and its instrumentality, including the present contract which is the subject matter of this application. The arbitration PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.07.14 16:56:04 +0530 2 agreement (Clause 25.3) stipulates that proceedings shall be held within the State of Chhattisgarh. The cause of action for the underlying contract and the respondents' refusal to arbitrate arose entirely within Chhattisgarh. The dispute arises from an infrastructure works contract of significant value, qualifying as a "commercial dispute" under Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Hence, this application is filed before the Commercial Division of this Court. 3. The applicant was awarded Agreement No. 08/CL/2016-17 (converted to 19/2016-17) dated 23.03.2017 for the "Construction of R.O.B. at Km 312/10 on NH-63". Clause 25.3 of the General Conditions of Contract (GCC), which is the binding arbitration agreement between the parties, provides as follows: "ARBITRATION (GCC Clause 25.3) The procedure for arbitration will be as follows- a) In case of Dispute or difference arising between the Employer and a domestic contractor parties shall make efforts to agree on a sole arbitrator and only if such an attempt does not succeed and the Arbitral Tribunal consisting of 3 arbitrators one each to be appointed by the relating to any matter arising out of or connected with this agreement, such disputes or difference shall be settled in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. The Employer and the Contractor and the third Arbitrator to be chosen by the two Arbitrators so appointed by the Parties to act as Presiding Arbitrator shall be considered. In case of failure of the two arbitrators appointed by the parties to reach upon a consensus within a period of 30 days from the appointment of the arbitrator appointed subsequently, the Presiding Arbitrator shall be appointed by the Council, Indian Roads Congress. b) The Arbitral Tribunal shall consist of three Arbitrators one each to be appointed by the Employer and the Contractor. The third Arbitrator shall be chosen by the two Arbitrators so appointed by the Parties and shall act a presiding arbitrator. In case of failure of the two arbitrators appointed by the parties to reach upon a consensus within a period of 30 days from the appointment of the arbitrator appointed subsequently, the Presiding arbitrator shall be appointed by the 3 Council, Indian Roads Congress. c) If one of the parties fails to appoint its arbitrator in pursuance of sub clause (a) and (b) above within 30 days after receipt of the notice of the appointment of its arbitrator by the other party, then 'Council, Indian Roads Congress' shall appoint the arbitrator. A certified copy of the order of the Council, Indian Roads Congress, making such an appointment shall be furnished to each of the parties. d) Arbitration proceedings shall be held in India, and the language of the arbitration proceedings and that of all documents and communication between the parties shall be English. e) The decision of the majority of arbitrators shall be final and binding upon both parties. The cost and expenses of Arbitration proceedings will be paid as determined by the arbitration tribunal However the expenses incurred by each party in connection with the preparation presentation etc. of its proceedings as also the fee and expenses paid to the arbitrator appointed by such party or on its behalf shall be borne by each party itself." This clause constitutes a valid and binding arbitration agreement under Section 7 of the Act, providing a clear procedure for the constitution of an arbitral tribunal. 4. Following the respondents' final rejection of the applicant's legitimate claims via Memo No. 1042/NHDP-Cell/CE/NH/Raipur dated 24.09.2025, the disputes became fully crystallized. In compliance with Section 21 of the Act, the applicant invoked arbitration by issuing a detailed Notice dated 07.11.2025. The Notice explicitly proposed, in the interest of expeditious resolution, the appointment of a mutually acceptable Sole Arbitrator. It also provided the alternative mechanism for a three-member tribunal as per Clause 25.3(b). 5. Vide Memo No. 3528/G/15-53 2016 dated 29.11.2025, the Superintending Engineer, acting for all respondents, stated in the following terms: - "This is to inform you that proposal mentioned in the Arbitration notice dated 7/11/25 is hereby denied... the appointment of sole arbitrator is hereby not accepted by the department and we are willing to proceed matter hand before appropriate court/authority" This communication is not a counter-proposal or a call for negotiation under Clause 25.3(a). It is an express, 4 unequivocal, and blanket refusal to participate in any form of the arbitration process agreed under Clause 25.3. The Respondents have thereby wholly disabled and repudiated the contractual appointment procedure. Consequently, there has been a complete "failure of the appointment procedure" as contemplated under Section 11(6) of the Act, triggering this Hon'ble Court's jurisdiction to intervene and appoint an arbitrator. 6. By refusing to arbitrate and opting for litigation, the respondents have forfeited their right to participate in the constitution of the arbitral tribunal under Clause 25.3(b) or (c). The law is well-settled that a party cannot stultify the arbitration agreement and later claim a right to appoint an arbitrator. The respondents' repudiation of the arbitration process itself operates as a waiver of any antecedent contractual steps, such as seeking an engineer's decision. Their refusal renders compliance with such steps impossible and unnecessary. The arbitration clause is severable from the main contract. The Respondents' refusal to follow the procedure does not invalidate the underlying agreement to arbitrate, which remains binding and enforceable. 7. This Court has consistently upheld the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator in near-identical factual matrices involving highway construction contracts within the state, particularly where the respondent authority has failed to cooperate in the appointment process. The present case, with its express refusal, presents an a fortiori case for judicial intervention. The Ministry of Road Transport & Highways (MoRTH), has no role, as the work was executed by the State PWD. Therefore, MoRTH is not a necessary party to these proceedings, and no relief will seek against it. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents/State relying on the return filed on behalf of the respondents, opposes the present arbitration request application, however he submits that the respondents shall have no objection if this Court appoints any Arbitrator for resolving the dispute between the parties. 5 9. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 10. 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 Arvind Kumar Verma, who is a retired Judge of this High Court may be appointed as the Sole Arbitrator. 11. In view of the above consensus between the learned counsel for the parties, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, 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. 12. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arvind Kumar Verma 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