1 CGHC010309462026 2026:CGHC:37665 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ARBR No. 48 of 2026 M/s A2z Infraservices Limited Through Its Authorised Signatories Mayank Kapoor, S/o Mahinder Kapoor, Aged About 29 Years Currently Working For Gain At A2Z India Services Limited Having Its Registered Office At O-116, First Floor, DLF Shopping Mall, DLF City, Phase 1, Arjun Marg, Gurugram - 122002, ... Applicant versus Chhattisgarh State Marketing Corporation Limited Through Its Managing Director Having Registered Office At CSIDC Commercial Complex 4th and 5th Floor, Mahadev Ghat Road, Raipura, Dangania, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Corporate Office At 4th Floor, Aabkari Bhavan, Labhandi, Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. Himanshu Pandey, Advocate (through video- conferencing). For Respondent(s) : Mr. Malay Shrivastava, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 21.08.2026 1. This is an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short "the Act") for appointment of an Arbitrator. 2. The facts, in brief, as projected by the applicant are that the applicant is engaged in the business of manpower supply and asset-management services, was empanelled by the respondent, a Government of Chhattisgarh PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.08.24 10:31:14 +0530 2 undertaking under the administrative control of the Excise Department, for supply of manpower to the respondent's retail liquor shops and establishments across the State of Chhattisgarh. Pursuant thereto, the applicant deployed manpower continuously from April 2018 until the expiry/withdrawal of the last extension in 2023-24. The respondent is a Government of Chhattisgarh undertaking incorporated under the Companies Act, 2013 (CIN: U51909CT2017SGC007813). The respondent is "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, and is accordingly bound to act fairly and reasonably, including in its contractual dealings. The respondent has the exclusive privilege of retail sale of alcohol across the State of Chhattisgarh, and regulates quality, maximum retail price, and distribution of beer, wine, and country/foreign liquor through its network of retail shops, for the running of which it engages placement agencies such as the applicant to supply manpower. The present application under Section the Act is preferred by the applicant for appointment of an independent Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes and claims arising out of tender bearing T.No. CSMC/Tender/2018-19/9 dated 25.01.2018, the Agreement dated 16.03.2018, Tender bearing T.No. CSMC/Tender/2019- 20/04 dated 06.08.2019, and the consequential Work Orders and extensions issued thereunder from time to time (collectively, "the Contract"). Substantial disputes have arisen between the parties, principally on account of : (1) non- payment of overtime wages statutorily and contractually payable at twice the ordinary rate for work performed beyond 8 hours a day, despite the respondent's own records certifying deployment of manpower for 11 hours a day, (ii) wrongful characterization and payment of only 26 working days (plus 4 days at the ordinary, and not the statutorily mandated double, rate) as full satisfaction of dues, resulting in a shortfall equivalent to approximately 13.25 days' wages per month, aggregating a claim of not less than Rs. 3 1,70,37,73,792/- on this head alone; (iii) non-payment of wages for work performed on weekly holidays/Sundays at the statutorily mandated double rate; and (iv) wrongful withholding and deduction of Handling Charges and arbitrary imposition of penalties, recovered from the applicant's running bills, management fee and Security Deposit. The applicant additionally refers, for context and completeness, to the arrest and prosecution of its Director, said to arise from incorrect information attributable to the respondent; the applicant does not press any claim for consequential or reputational loss arising therefrom in the present reference, and expressly reserves the right to pursue the same separately, as and when so advised. Despite sustained correspondence and representations, and despite the respondent's own subsequent Tender bearing T.No. CSMCL/Tender/2024-25/2 dated 19.02.2024 expressly acknowledging, at Clause 24.1 thereof, the methodology for computation of overtime wages at twice the ordinary hourly rate, the respondent has failed and neglected to settle the applicant's dues. The applicant accordingly invoked the arbitration agreement by issuing a notice under Section 21 of the Act [Annexure A-23], received by the respondent's registered office on 01.06.2026 and by its corporate/administrative office on 04.06.2026. The respondent has failed either to appoint an Arbitrator or to respond to the said notice within the period of thirty days prescribed under Section 11(4)(a) of the Act a period that expired, at the latest, on 04.07.2026 necessitating the present application. Independently, the applicant submits that Clause 14's named- arbitrator mechanism can no longer be given effect to in view of Central Organisation for Railway Electrification v. ECI-SPIC-SMO-MCML (JV), 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3219, warranting appointment of an independent Sole Arbitrator by this Hon'ble Court. The applicant accordingly prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to appoint an independent Sole Arbitrator to 4 adjudicate all disputes between the parties, leaving the merits, quantification, and limitation of the respective claims and defences to the Arbitral Tribunal. 3. The Contract contains a valid and subsisting arbitration clause (Clause 14) providing for reference of disputes to arbitration in accordance with the Act. The abritration Clause in each of the aforesaid tenders is identically phrased, and the relevant part thereof is reproduced hereunder:- "14. ARBITRATION: 14.1 In the event of any question, dispute or difference arising under this agreement or in connection there-with except as to matter the decision of which is specifically provided under this agreement, the same shall be referred to sole arbitration of the Secretary, Excise, Government of Chhattisgarh, or some other person appointed by him. The agreement to appoint an arbitrator will be in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent 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. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. 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 Sanjay Agrawal, who is a retired Judge of this High Court may be appointed as the Sole Arbitrator. 7. In view of the above consensus between the learned counsel for the parties, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Agrawal, 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. 8. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to Hon’ble Mr. Justice 5 Sanjay Agrawal 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/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti