1 CGHC010239152025 2026:CGHC:35691 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ARBR No. 22 of 2025 Carrer Point Limited Through Its Authorised Representative Manish Binju, S/o Shri Satish Binju, Aged 42 Yrs Having Corporate Office At CP Tower Road No. 1, Kota, Rajasthan ... Applicant versus District Education Officer, Korba Rampur, The District Education Office Korba, Collectorate Campus District Korba, Chhattisgarh - 595677. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. R.S. Patel, Advocate. For Respondent : None. Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 12.08.2026 1. This is an application under Sections 11(5) and (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 the Company Incorporated under the Company Act, 1956 as amended and having corporate office at CP Tower Road No. 1, Kota, Rajasthan. The applicant Company is a well-established organization in the field of education and providing tutorial services under the brand "CAREER POINT" in the prey-medical and prep-engineering entrance test preparation segment in India. The respondent floated the Expression of interest for coaching in the state of Chhattisgarh as per the guidelines of the "Ruchi Ki Abhivayakti 2 scheme". The respondent received interest from various coaching institutions and out of those the applicant was selected and accepted the offer vide office order 4608/coaching/2016-2017/Korba dated 24.10.2016. The applicant and respondent entered into an agreement for the same on 5/12/2019. The applicant as per the terms and conditions of the agreement dated 5/12/2019 provided education coaching services of Mathematics and Science subject for class 11th and 12th students studying in Chhattisgarh government school as per the curriculum of Chhattisgarh Board of Secondary Education and further for the preparation of JEE(mains/advance)/NEET/CGPET/CGPPHT. The aplicant performed their part of the obligations and responsibilities as per the terms and conditions of the agreement dated 5/12/2019 and provided services from 2016 which continued till 2020. The respondent vide order dated 17/02/2022 had extended the time for further period of 4 months i.e., 1 January 2020 to 1May 2020. The respondents started defaulting in the payment of the bills to the applicant Company as per the agreement. The respondent failed to disburse the full amount of Rs. 54 Lakhs for the period July 2019 to December 2019. The respondent has only paid Rs. 43.20 Lakhs out of the total of Rs. 54 Lakhs. Thus, Rs. 10.80 Lakhs remains due and pending for the period July 2019 to December 2019. That the Respondent has failed to honour the payment of Rs. 36 Lakhs for the period of January 2020 to May 2020. The applicant had also deposited the security deposit of Rs. 8,10,000/- to the respondent in two tranches. Repeated reminders and request through the officials of the applicant Company were made to the respondent and his officials. However, the respondents deliberately and willfully breaching and violating the terms & conditions of the agreement dated 5/12/2019 and consistently defaulting in payment of the charges accrue as per the agreement dated 5/12/2019. The applicant company issued the notice for the demand of the dues on 10.03.2023 and 3 email dated 11.03.2023 for the payment of the due amount amounting to Rs. 46.80 Lakhs only (Rs. 10.80 Lakhs + Rs. 36 Lakhs) along with the Security Deposit of Rs. 8,10,000/-. Thus, the total due amount is Rs. 54,90,000/-. The same was delivered to the respondents and no reply was issued by the respondents. The applicant has again written a letter dated 05/05/2023 to the respondent for the disbursement of the amount. The dispute has arisen between the applicant Company and the respondent in respect of Agreement dated 05.12.2019. The Clause 27 of the Agreement states reference to Arbitration in event of any disputes between the parties. The applicant company issued the notice for the invocation of the arbitration on 04.07.2023 to the respondents. However, the said notice was delivered but not replied by the respondents. The said clause 27 of the agreement referring parties to the adjudication of dispute before collector of the district Korba is illegal as respondent is the interested party, and further, respondent cannot unilaterally appoint/designate the arbitrator for adjudication of the dispute. It is settled law that the interested party having interest in the outcome of the dispute cannot appoint arbitrator nor can act as arbitrator. Therefore, the referring matter/ dispute or claim arisen in present agreement to collector is futile exercise and the said course of the constitution of the adjudication of dispute is barred in law. Since no place of arbitration or clause pertaining to courts having exclusive jurisdiction has not been fixed, decided or mentioned in the present agreement, thus as per the Section 20 of the CPC part cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court i.e., Kota. The applicant is operating its coaching institute in Kota, Rajasthan and has provided the teaching faculty and staff from Kota as per the terms of the agreement. The applicant provided the study material/course material from Kota, Rajasthan. The respondent played the fraud with the applicant through inducive representations and assurances for the sole motive of getting illegal 4 gain and to cheat the applicant. The present Clause 27 is akin to arbitration clause though the word "arbitration" is missing in the present agreement but the same has all the tapping of the arbitration clause. Further, the clause 27 states that the decision of the Collector is binding on the parties which clearly is an essential ingredient to construe a clause as an arbitration clause. The essential ingredient for a clause to be an arbitration clause are (a) the agreement should be in writing, (b) parties should have agreed to refer any dispute between them to the decision of an authority or tribunal and/or any other designated person (c) the parties should have agreed that the decision of the said authority in respect of the dispute will be binding on them. Therefore, the present clause is akin to the arbitration clause. The respondent has not taken any objection nor replied to the notice of the invocation of the arbitration as per the clause 27. The period of 30 days has expired after the receipt of the said notice i.e., 10/07/2023. The respondent allured and induced the applicant to enter into the said agreement and had the dishonest intention from the very beginning. The applicant bonafidely believed the respondent representation and fell under the trap and being deceived by respondent and offered their services. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in DATAR SWITCHGEAR LTD. VS TATA FINANCE LTD. AND ORS., MANU/SC/0651/2000, HELD IN "PARA 23. When the Parties have entered into the contract and settled on a procedure, due importance has to be given to such procedure....….”. 3. The agreement clause 27 is valid arbitration clause which fulfills the ingredients of being valid arbitration clause. Thus, the Hon'ble Court has jurisdiction to appoint the sole arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute. Therefore, in the present facts and circumstances it is necessary that the Hon'ble High Court may exercise its jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an Arbitrator. The Hon'ble High 5 Court have territorial Jurisdiction to entertain the present Application. The notice for invocation of Arbitration was sent from Kota on 04.07.2023. Therefore the cause of action has accrued within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court and hence this Hon'ble Court has the territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present petition. The Hon'ble High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur has passed the order on 29.11.2024, in S. B. Arbitration Application No.128/2023 and disposed of the arbitration application with liberty to approach before the High Court of Chhattisgarh as per the agreement dated 05.12.2019. The applicant have no other efficacious alternative remedy except to invoke the jurisdiction of the Hon'ble High Court for redressal. The present petition is bonafide and in the interest ofjustice irreparable loss and injury would be caused to the petitioner in case the relief prayed for is not granted in favour of the applicant. The applicant have not filed any other or similar application against the respondent on same cause of action seeking similar relief before this Hon'ble Court or Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. 4. Vide order dated 18.06.2025, this Court had directed for issuance of notice to the respondent. The matter was thereafter listed on 06.10.2025. On 06.10.2025, as per the office report, notice has not been received after service, thereafter on 09.02.2026, the applicant was permitted to serve notice through paper publication in two leading newspapers which had large circulation over the area of District – Korba, C.G. 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 appears nor is any representation made of behalf of the respondent. 5. In compliance with the Hon'ble Court order dated 09.02.2026, the notice has been published in the Daily NEWS papers i.e. The Navbharat (Hindi) on 6 19.04.2026 and on 26.04.2026 in The Chronical (English), which are being filed herewith along with covering memo which is taken on record. Despite having being served, the respondent has not appeared nor is there any opposition to the arbitration request, and further having regard to the fact that Clause 27 of the agreement for the mechanism for resolution of the dispute through arbitration, this Court deems it appropriate to appoint any retired District Judge as Arbitrator. 6. A query was put to learned counsel appearing for the applicant as to who may be appointed as Arbitrator for resolving the dispute existing between the parties, Mr. Patel submits that Mr. Ashok Ku. Panda, who is a retired District Judge may be appointed as Arbitrator. 7. In view of the above facts situation of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to appoint Mr. Ashok Ku. Panda, a retired District Judge to act as the Sole Arbitrator to resolve the dispute involved in this arbitration request between the parties. 8. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to Mr. Ashok Ku. Panda in the proper address. 9. The remuneration of the Arbitrator shall be settled with the mutual consent of the parties. 10. The arbitration request petition, accordingly, stands allowed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti