1 CGHC010280782026 2026:CGHC:30934 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ARBR No. 42 of 2026 Ms Jayant Infratech Limited Having Its Office At Mangal Smriti, Bajpai Ground, Tilak Nagar, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh represented Through Its Special Power of Attorney Holder, Shri Nilesh Jobanputra, S/o Late Kantilal Jobanputra, Aged About 56 Years. ... Applicant versus 1. Union of India Through Its General Manager, South East Central Railways, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2. Chief Electrical Engineer, South East Central Railways, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3. Deputy Chief Electrical Engineer/Con/BSP, South East Central Railways, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4. Deputy Chief Electrical Engineer/Con/HQ/BSP, South East Central Railways, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate along with Mr. Kabeer Kalwani, Advocate. For Respondents/UOI : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Deputy Solicitor General. Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 21.07.2026 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 is a PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.07.22 17:16:46 +0530 2 company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and is registered with the Registrar of Companies. The company was originally incorporated as Jayant Infratech Pvt. Ltd. in the year 2003. Subsequently, the name of the company was changed to Jayant Infratech Limited and thereafter all correspondences were executed between the parties i.e. the respondent authorities and the applicant. The applicant is inter-alia, engaged in the activity of Railway Electrification and Infrastructure Projects. The applicant in the instant application is being represented by its Special Power of Attorney Holder, Shri Nilesh Jobanputra, Managing Director of the applicant. Respondent No. 1 is a zone of Indian Railways situated in the Central India and is serving the states of Chhattisgarh, Odisha, Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra. Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are its officers. The respondents invited a bid for the work of "Electrification of BSP Yard (20TKM) by 25KV, 50HZ, Single Phase, AC OHE in connection with Bilaspur - Yard Remodelling and removal of infringements in BSP Division Over SEC Railways." M/s. Jayant Infratech Pvt. Ltd. had also participated in the tender and upon becoming the successful bidder, the Letter of Acceptance was issued by respondent No. 3 on 21.04.2021 for the Contract Value of Rs. 11,62,22,424.54/-. The work was to be completed within the period of 18 months from the date of LoA. Subsequently, the Contract Agreement was signed on 22.06.2021. In accordance with the terms of Letter of Acceptance the Performance Security in form of FDR was submitted before the Railways being FDR bearing No. 18477213 dated 19.06.2024, issued by the ICICI Bank, which is made on auto renewal basis. Initially, the performance guarantee was executed by the in the year 2021 through Bank of Baroda; thereafter, in the year 2024, the applicant changed its banking arrangements from Bank of Baroda to ICICI Bank, and pursuant to such change, the Bank Guarantee submitted earlier was replaced with Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) 3 issued on auto-renewal for the further period of the contract. Since the inception of the contract, the work was being delayed due to the reasons not attributable to the applicant, namely, delay due to COVID-19, delay due to non-approval of Layout Plan, delay in approval of Electrical Scale Plan (ESP), delay in providing the approved drawings, non-availability and delay in issuance of materials, delay in infringement clearances, delay in finalization of key inputs, etc. As these hindrances were not rectified by the respondent authorities, the applicant vide its letters dated 15.05.2024, 04.04.2025 requested the respondent to close the contract, in order to avoid any further losses being suffered by the applicant. As a result of which, the original contract period has been extended by the respondent under clause 17-A of GCC, without penalty and with PVC and the last extension being upto 31.03.2026. The respondents vide its letter dated 30.03.2026 requested the applicant to apply for grant of Extension of Time. It is stated that, this letter of the respondents was duly replied by the applicant on same date i.e. 30.03.2026 inter-alia, stating that since the respondent is not able to resolve the hindrances, it is not possible for the applicant to apply for EoT unless the respondents provides clear inputs. No extension was granted after 31.03.2026 and the instant contract has expired by efflux of time on 31.03.2026. Further, the grant of all the extensions without penalty and with PVC shows that the respondents admit that the delay is not attributable to the applicant. Despite all hindrances, the applicant had executed about 63.87% of the total work i.e. the applicant has executed work of about Rs. 7,42,32,693.69/- and thereafter no bill has been prepared. To the utter surprise of the applicant, the respondent on 03.03.2026 issued a 7 days' notice to the applicant, which was duly replied by the Claimant vide its letter dated 12.03.2026. Thereafter, vide letter dated 19.03.2026, 48 hours' notice was issued to the applicant which was duly replied by letter of the applicant 4 dated 20.03.2026 and 23.03.2026 and since the respondents Authorities were duly satisfied with response of the applicant, as nothing was heard from the respondent thereafter. Thereafter, no further suprise, the respondents on 23.04.2026 terminated the contract. It is stated that when the said termination notice was issued, the contract agreement was not in existence as currency of the same had expired with efflux of time on 31.03.2026 and as such the termination itself is non-est. It is further stated that the termination of Contract was done by the authority (Respondent No. 4) other than the authority (Respondent No. 3) which has issued the letter of Acceptance and as such the termination is illegal on this ground alone. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant vide its letter dated 24.04.2026 objected to the illegal termination and have also invoked the Arbitration Clause. The applicant filed an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the Hon'ble Commercial Court, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur (C.G.), seeking interim protection of encashment of Performance Guarantee and forfeiture of Security Deposit and till the constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal, which was registered as Arbitration MJC No. 30 of 2026. The Hon'ble Commercial Court, vide order dated 27.04.2026, was pleased to direct the respondent Authorities, including the respondent Bank, not to forfeit the Security Deposit (including ISD) amounting to Rs.70,01,806/- and the Performance Guarantee in the form of FDR bearing No. 18477213 dated 19.06.2024, till the next date of hearing. The respondent authorities have filed their reply to the application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the Hon'ble Commercial Court, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur (C.G.). In reply to Paragraph No. 16 of the said application, the respondent Authorities have specifically pleaded as under: "The applicant vide letter dated 24.04.2026 to GM/SECR, the contractor has invoked the arbitration under Clause 64 5 of GCC for adjudication of all the disputes arising out of this contract. Therefore, there is an alternative remedy available with the applicant. In this condition, the contractor's action of approaching the Hon'ble Court for getting instant remedy will create unnecessary ambiguity, while all issues can be resolved through arbitration." 4. The respondent authorities have themselves admitted that the disputes arising between the parties are arbitrable and are liable to be adjudicated through arbitration. It is further submitted that the respondent Authorities, in response to the letter of the Claimant invoking Arbitration, vide letter dated 06.07.2026, called upon the applicant to waive the applicability of Sections 12(5) and Section 31A(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. However, the applicant, vide its reply dated 08.07.2026, declined to waive the said statutory provisions and further requested to appoint an independent arbitral tribunal preferably a retired judge. The respondent authorities, vide letter dated 09.07.2026, rejected the applicant's request for the appointment of an independent Arbitral Tribunal, preferably a retired Judge, on the ground that it was beyond their jurisdiction to appoint a retired Judge as an Arbitrator. In view of the forgoing compelling circumstances there is no effective remedy to the applicant except approaching this Court for appointment of an independent Arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as the condition precedent for the application has been satisfied as the respondent has failed to appoint the arbitrator at the request by the Applicant to do so. Accordingly, the applicant is approaching this Court, for appointment of a sole Arbitrator. This Court as per provisions of Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has jurisdiction for the Arbitral Tribunal as the zonal headquarter of the respondent is located in Bilaspur and the works were also executed in Bilaspur as such this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the present Application. The cause of action to file the present application had arisen 6 when the respondent had failed to agree upon appointment of independent Arbitrator, preferably a retired judge, upon the request being made by the applicant. The present application having been filed in aforesaid facts and circumstances are well within the period of limitation. Accordingly, the applicant has filed the present application to pray to this Court to appoint a fit and proper person as Arbitrator, under Clause 64 of the General Conditions of Contract and under section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, in view of the failure on the part of the respondents to appoint the arbitrator. The applicant has not filed any other petition regarding appointment of an Arbitrator under the Arbitration Agreement contained. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents opposes this 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. 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 Arvind Kumar Verma who is a retired Judge of 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 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. 9. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arvind Kumar Verma in the proper address. 7 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