1 CGHC010280232026 2026:CGHC:30935 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ARBR No. 41 of 2026 Rakshak Securitas Private Limited Through Its State Head, Pankaj Kumar Chauhan, Aged About 40 Years, S/o Akshayawat Singh, Reg Office T-5, Plot No. 12, Manish Plaza-III, Sector -10, Dwarka, New Delhi 110075 ... Applicant versus Chhattishgarh State Marketing Corporation Limited (CSMCL) Through Its Managing Director, Aabkari Bhavan, Near Chokra Nala, Labhandi, District Raipur, C.G. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Ishaan Saluja, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Malay Shrivastava, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 21.07.2026 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 private limited company engaged in providing manpower services to various corporations and government undertakings. The applicant firm has been consistently discharging its duties with due diligence and has maintained a satisfactory record of quality work and professional excellence. The respondent Chhattisgarh State Marketing Corporation Limited, Raipur, Chhattisgarh (hereinafter referred to as "CSMCL") issued a tender for PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.07.22 17:16:45 +0530 2 empanelment of placement agencies for supply of manpower to CSMCL vide Tender No. CSMCL/Tender/2024-25/2 dated 19.02.2024. Pursuant to the said tender, the applicant firm submitted its bid and was found eligible and successful. Consequently, the applicant firm was awarded the tender vide work order dated 31.03.2024 issued by the Deputy General Manager, CSMCL, Raipur. The applicant firm appointed a District Coordinator, namely Ankit Tiwari for conducting inspections of the liquor shops for which manpower was deployed by the applicant firm. The said District Coordinator regularly performed inspections and oversight of the shop at Bacheli, Dantewada as well as various other shops at different locations namely Dhamtari, Bijapur, Bastar, Sukma. There is no irregularity in the other locations where the applicant's district coordinator is deployed for inspection. To the shock and surprise of the applicant firm, a show cause notice dated 05.12.2025 was issued by CSMCL alleging serious financial irregularities, including embezzlement, stock shortfall, non-deposit of sale proceeds, and gross negligence by the manpower deployed at the Foreign Composite Liquor Shop, Bacheli, Dantewada involving an alleged amount of Rs.1,52,47,774/. The applicant firm submitted a detailed reply dated 10.12.2025 to the aforesaid show cause notice dated 05.12.2025, wherein the applicant firm explained its position with respect to the alleged irregularities stated to have occurred at the Foreign Composite Liquor Shop, Bacheli. Despite submission of the detailed reply by the applicant firm, the Financial Advisor, CSMCL, while clearing the pending dues of the applicant firm, issued payment order dated 20.01.2026, whereby an amount of Rs.50,58,170/- was deducted as a first installment towards recovery, with a further mention that the remaining amount would be recovered in two additional installments. Ajay Kumar Sharma, Excise Sub-Inspector, was assigned the duty to conduct inspections of the aforesaid Foreign Composite 3 Liquor Shop at Bacheli. Further, apart from the applicant firm acting as the placement agency, two other agencies were also engaged, namely Hitachi Cash Management, the officially appointed cash collection agency responsible for daily cash collection and deposit, and Kaloti & Lathiya, Chartered Accountants, who were contractually responsible for physical stock verification. The alleged irregularities are stated to have occurred due to the acts and omissions on the part of the Excise Sub-Inspector Ajay Kumar Sharma and the failure of the aforesaid two agencies to properly discharge their respective contractual duties. The District Coordinator employed by the applicant firm duly performed his duties of conducting regular inspections and verification of the concerned liquor shop; however, he was obstructed and threatened by the Excise Sub-Inspector and was prevented from entering the shop and carrying out inspection and stock verification. The said obstruction was brought to the notice of the respondent- District Manager, CSMCL, both orally and through written communications dated 17.11.2025 and 21.11.2025. The Excise Sub-Inspector was duty bound to conduct regular inspections of the concerned liquor shop. The Excise Sub-Inspector conducted inspections of the Foreign Composite Liquor Shop at Bacheli during the period when the alleged irregularities are stated to have occurred and also submitted detailed inspection reports. Surprisingly, each inspection report for the said period records that the functioning of the shop was in accordance with the prescribed rules and that cash was being duly deposited into the Government account "via RFID mode". Pursuant to repeated oral and written complaints made by the District Coordinator of the applicant firm, the District Manager, CSMCL, South Bastar, Dantewada (C.G.), conducted an inspection of the aforesaid shop at Bacheli on 25.11.2025. It is submitted that it was only on account of the information provided by the District Coordinator of the applicant firm that the 4 alleged irregularities were brought to the notice of the respondent authorities, thus the employee Ankit Tiwari and the applicant firm is a whistleblower in the alleged irregularity and shall not be equated anyways as a part of the conspiracy. After conducting the inspection, the District Manager, CSMCL submitted a preliminary inspection report dated 25.11.2025, wherein it was recorded that the whole irregularity has been caused due to lapse on the part of Excise sub inspector taking money from shop workers and other two agencies not fulfilling their obligations. Thereafter, the District Manager, CSMCL submitted a final inspection report dated 01.12.2025 to the Managing Director, CSMCL, wherein it was categorically recorded that the other two agencies failed to fulfil their contractual obligations with the respondent CSMCL. Section V of the tender CSMCL/Tender/2024-25/2 dated 19.02.2024 provides for Scope and Specification of the work of the applicant agency. The agency is appointed by respondent authority to supply manpower for running of retail shop and CSMCL establishments in respective districts. The employee Ankit Tiwari duly informed the District Manager, CSMCL about illegal activities on the part of the excise sub-inspector. The other two agencies are specifically appointed for cash collection deposit and stock verification at the shops. The clause invoked by respondent authority warrants negligence on the part of manpower of the applicant agency, however the applicant firm and its employees have duly reported the said illegal activities and were actively prevented by AK Sharma excise sub-inspector to enter the shop for inspection. 3. Aggrieved by the actions of respondent CSMCL, the applicant approached this Court vide WPC No. 369/2026 challenging the payment order passed by respondent authority whereby this Court permitted the applicant to withdraw the petition with liberty to avail remedy of arbitration under Clause 16 of the agreement between parties. Relevant portion of the order is reproduced 5 below for ready reference of this Court: "9. At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he may be permitted to withdraw the present petition with liberty to avail the remedy available to him under Clause 16 of the agreement, which stipulates resolution of disputes through arbitration proceedings. 10. In view of the aforesaid submission made on behalf of the petitioner, the present petition is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty as prayed for. It is further observed that the applicant shall also be at liberty to take recourse to such other remedies as may be available to him in law, if occasion so arises." 4. The applicant vide notice dated 09.02.2026 sought to invoke the arbitration clause in accordance with clause 16 of the General Conditions of Contract in Tender No. CSMCL/Tender/2024-25/2 dated 19.02.2024 and proposed Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Chandra Singh Samant, however the respondent has failed to reply or reach a consensus for appointment of arbitrator within the period of 30 days as stipulated in the notice dated 09.02.2026. 5. Clause 16 of the General Conditions of Contract provides as follows: "16. ARBITRATION 16.1 The parties shall try to resolve disputes amicably between them, in case of failure of the parties to do so the dispute shall be referred for arbitration as per this clause. 16.2 Any dispute arising from or associated with this contract shall be referred arbitration for resolution. The arbitration shall be conducted as per provisions of Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. 16.3 The seat and venue of the arbitration shall be Raipur, Chhattisgarh, India." 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that since the dispute has not been resolved, and the respondent has not replied to the letter invoking arbitration, the applicant is filing the present application for appointment of arbitrator. Accordingly, the applicant is approaching this Court, for appointment of Arbitrator. This Court as per provisions of Section 11 of the 6 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has jurisdiction for the appointment of Arbitral Tribunal. The cause of action to file the present application had arisen when the respondent had failed to reply or consent to the appointment of Arbitrator 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 sole Arbitrator, under Clause 16 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 respondent to reply to the notice of invocation of arbitration and appointment of arbitrator. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent opposes this arbitration request application, however he submits that the respondent shall have no objection if this Court appoints any Arbitrator for resolving the dispute between the parties. 8. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 9. 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 Deepak Kumar Tiwari, who is a retired Judge of this High Court may be appointed as the Sole Arbitrator. 10. In view of the above consensus between the learned counsel for the parties, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari, 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. 11. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari in the proper address. 7 12. The remuneration of the Arbitrator shall be settled with the mutual consent of the parties. 13. The arbitration request petition, accordingly, stands allowed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti