1 CGHC010164382026 2026:CGHC:34283 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ARBR No. 27 of 2026 Sunil Sundrani S/o Late Shri Manoharlal Sundrani, Aged About 49 Years, R/o Devendra Nagar, Sector -2, B-19, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Through Its Power Of Attorney Holder, Shri Saksham Sundrani, S/o Shri Sunil Sundrani, Aged About 25 Years, R/o At Devendra Nagar, Sector -2, B-19, Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Sandeep Sundrani S/o Late Shri Manoharlal Sundrani, Aged About 47 Years, R/o A-411, Kachnar, Sambhar, Napier Town, 4th Pool, Road Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Ankit Singhal, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. A.S.Hunain, Advocate (through video-conferencing). Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 05.08.2026 1. Heard Mr. Ankit Singhal, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. A.S.Hunain, learned counsel appearing through video- conferencing for the respondent. 2. This is an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the applicant and the respondent. PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.08.07 16:17:31 +0530 2 3. At the outset, learned counsel for the respondent submits that an Arbitration Appeal being No. 194/2026, arising out of the same dispute between the parties, is presently pending before the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh, which has been vehemently disputed by the learned counsel for the applicant. 4. During the course of hearing, this Court verified through the official website of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh that Arbitration Appeal No. 194/2026, filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is pending between the parties. It was further noticed that the said appeal had been preferred by the present applicant. However, the pendency of the said appeal has not been disclosed in the present arbitration request. 5. Upon the said fact being brought to the notice of the learned counsel for the applicant, and after obtaining instructions from his client, learned counsel submitted that the aforesaid appeal had, in fact, been filed before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. He, therefore, prays that the present arbitration request be permitted to be dismissed as withdrawn. 6. In view of the categorical submission advanced by learned counsel appearing for the parties with regard to pendency of appeal before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh with respect to the issue involved in this arbitration request, this Court deems it appropriate to permit the applicant to withdraw this arbitration request petition. 7. Accordingly, this arbitration request petition is dismissed as withdrawn. However, since the applicant has suppressed the material fact with regard to pendency of an appeal before another forum, a cost of Rs. 25,000/- is imposed upon the applicant which shall be deposited by the applicant within a period of three weeks from today in the Registry of this Court failing which the same shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue, in accordance with law by the Registrar General of this Court. The amount so deposited shall be transmitted to 3 Government Disabled College, Mana Camp, Raipur (C.G.). 8. The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to place the certified copy of this order before the Registrar General of this Court within a week for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti