1 CGHC010145472025 2026:CGHC:36654 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ARBR No. 20 of 2025 Jayaswal Neco Industries Ltd Through Its Authorized Representative Shri Jitendra Prasad Gupta, Aged About 52 Years, Occ. Addl. General Manager (Purchase) Having Registered Office At- F-8, MIDC Industrial Area, Hingna Road, Nagpur- 440016, Plant At Raipur. ... Applicant versus Krupay Industries Corporate Office No 115, Cama Industrial Estate Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013. ... Respondent For Applicant :Mr. Ashish Surana and Mr. Maharshi Chaturvedi, Advocate. For Respondent :None. Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 17.08.2026 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 a Public Limited Company registered under the provision of Companies Act 1956, carrying on the business of manufacturing and selling of sponge iron, pig iron, structural steel and alloy steel, etc. having its registered office at Nagpur, Maharashtra along with other manufacturing unit spread over different parts of the country being represented by its Authorized PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.08.19 17:38:34 +0530 2 Representative Shri Jitendra Prasad Gupta authorized vide Board Resolution dated 12.08.2024. The respondent is a Partnership Firm having its principle place of business at No. 141, Vahela Road, Mankoli, Dist. Thane 421302, engaged in the manufacture of MS Saw pipes and hollow profiles and pipe fitting of cast-iron/cast-steel etc. The respondent was aware of the fact that the applicant Company was in need of MS Saw Pipes and that for the same the applicant had given its first inquiry to the respondent on 10.11.2023 through e-mail against the Indent No. 5300000053 dated 14.10.2023. After the initial inquiry made by the applicant on 10.11.2023, a Purchase Order bearing No. 5500000049 dated 28.11.2023, was issued by the applicant for the purchase of various sizes of MS Saw Pipes. The terms and conditions related to the payment under the said Purchase Order are as follows: "PAYMENT: 25% Advance Against Security Cheque and Balance Against P.I.". Subsequent to the issuance of the above-mentioned Purchase Order, the respondent issued a Proforma Invoice bearing No. 453 amounting to Rs. 11,375,376.00/- (inclusive of GST) dated 28.11.2023, along with a security cheque for Rs.24,10,037/- bearing no. 664999. Thereafter, on 05.12.2023, the applicant made an advance payment of Rs. 24,10,084.20/- (25% of the order value). On 28.11.2023, the respondent issued another Proforma Invoice bearing No. 461. It is submitted that the Applicant in compliance with Herms and conditions of the above referred Proforma Invoice No 461, made an additional payment of Rs 89,59,011/- to the Respondent on 20.12.2023. Despite disbursal of advance amounts by the applicant to the respondent, the respondent miserably failed to honour the business commitment and delayed the supplies of the materials by giving one reason or another. Due to this delay in the supply of the materials by the respondent, the applicant was forced to suspend its on-going project due to the non-supply of materials by the respondent within the Stipulated timeline 3 because of which the applicant had to suffer and ingur huge financial losses., after repeated follow-ups and requests by the applicant, the respondent issued an email dated 14.02.2024, acknowledging that an amount of Rs.69,85,4917 is lying with the respondent against the advance payments made by the applicant. Further vide the same email, the respondent also communicated that it is working on a schedule for the supply of the materials and that the same would be shared by the end of the day. On 26.02.2024, a meeting was held at the Mumbai works office of the Respondent, wherein, various issues regarding delayed supplies of Materials were discussed in detail and a Minutes of Meeting was also executed between the parties. The respondent miserably failed to honour the terms and conditions which were agreed in the Minutes of Meeting dated 26.02.2024 and kept on pleading for extra time for various reasons and failed to supply the Materials within the agreed timeline. On 22.03.2024, the respondent issued an Email communication to the applicant, wherein, the respondent assured that the respondent will start refunding the amount to applicant from 10.04.2024 onwards and entire advance amount will be refunded to applicant on or before 15.05.2024. However, respondent once again failed to take any positive steps towards refund of advance money to applicant. 3. On 04.06.2024 the applicant issued a demand letter through email communication to the respondent, calling the respondent to refund the amount of Rs.69,85,491/- (paid as advance) along with Rs. 8,38,256/- (interest @ 18% p.a. calculated on the outstanding amount from /02/2024 to 30/09/2024) totalling to Rs. 78,23,747/- within a period of seven days from the receipt of the demand letter. The said demand letter was duly served on the respondent, however, till date, the respondent has neither responded to the said Demand Letter nor refunded the legally acknowledged due amount to the applicant. On 18.06.2024, the respondent verbally informed the 4 applicant to deposit the said security cheque bearing number '664999' drawn on Bank of Maharashtra, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013. Thereafter, the Applicant on 19.06.2024, after the assurances given by the Respondent presented the said cheque for clearance. However, to the utter shock and surprise of the Applicant that the aforesaid cheque got dishonoured for "Fund Insufficient" vide Bank Memo No.016409/003002/475720 on 20.06.2024. That the Applicant has the reason initiated proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 at Nagpur which is pending adjudication. The respondent has miserably failed to supply the materials within the agreed timeline and also failed to refund the legally acknowledged debt to the applicant. In total, four Purchase Orders were issued by the applicant in favor of the Respondent. Out of the four Purchase Orders, the general terms and conditions, which include the arbitration clause, were attached and sent to the Respondent along with only one Purchase Order bearing No. 4300007819. However, for the remaining three Purchase Orders, the terms and conditions were inadvertently not attached at the time of issuance. The company has a standard set of conditions, termed as General Terms and Conditions, which are attached to all Purchase Orders and other contracts entered into by the applicant with third parties. The respondent was well aware of the General Terms and Conditions, which include the arbitration clause. Knowing very well that the General Terms and Conditions contains an arbitration clause, the Respondent never objected to the same at any given point of time and accepted all four Purchase Orders, knowing very well that all the Purchase Orders are governed by the General Terms and Conditions. At this juncture, it is important to refer to the arbitration clause mentioned in the General Terms and Conditions. 4. Clause 20 of the General Terms and Conditions is reproduced below: "20. ARBITRATION: Both the parties shall try to resolve 5 their difference or disputes pertaining to this purchase in an amicable manner within a period of 30 days, failing which the difference or dispute may be referred to an Sole Arbitrator to be mutually appointed by both the parties failing which the Sole Arbitrator shall be appointed as per procedure laid down under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 or amendment thereof. The outcome of Arbitration shall be final and binding upon both parties. The venue of Arbitration shall be at Raipur (Chhattisgarh), India." 5. From a bare perusal of the above arbitration clause, it is evident that the entire dispute between the parties shall be referred to a Sole Arbitrator, and the place of arbitration shall be Raipur. On 26.09.2024 the applicant through it Counsel Adv. Maharshi Chaturvedi issued a legal notice dated 26.09.2024 invoking Clause 20 of the Purchase Order, calling upon the Respondent to pay the outstanding dues in respect of non-delivery of goods/material against the advance amount made by the applicant. It is to be noted that clause 20 of Purchase Order specifies that the Sole arbitrator shall be mutually appointed by both the parties. Sole Arbitrator shall be appointed as per procedure laid down under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 or amendment thereof. The venue of Arbitration shall be at Raipur (Chhattisgarh), India. The respondent vide its reply dated 26.10.2024 to Arbitration Notice issued by the counsel of the applicant, replied with unattainable grounds. Further, the respondent has disputed the arbitration clause mentioned in the purchase orders and also rejected the request of the applicant to appoint Mr.Dhananjay Navik as a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties. In view of the submissions made in the aforesaid, it is clear that dispute has arisen between the applicant and the respondent and that the applicant herein has no other option but to approach this Hon'ble Court for appointment of Arbitrator under Section 11(5) and 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the respondent replied to the 6 above mentioned notice issued by the applicant. However, the respondent rejected the application to appoint a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties. It is thus clear that respondent deliberately, with mala-fide intention of non-payment of legally enforceable debt is trying to avoid its obligations, thus the applicant has no option but to approach this Hon'ble Court. The applicant cannot be made to suffer on the account of non-payment of dues by the respondent. Clearly a dispute concerning non- payment of dues has arisen between the parties, due to the failure on the part of the Respondent in payment of its legally enforceable debt. The applicant therefore is constrained to approach this Hon'ble Court and file the instant application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and WECO INDOS, Conciliation Act, 1996 praying for the nomination and appointment of arbitrator by Hon'ble Court as per the Arbitration Clause under Purchase Orders. 7. As per the clause 20 of the Purchase Order bearing No. 4300007819 the jurisdiction shall be at Raipur (Chhattisgarh), India. The present application pertains to a subject matter of over Rs. 69,85,491/-, as well as interest @18% from the date when the Respondent failed to supply material to the Applicant a per the Purchase orders and the instant application filed before this Hon'ble Court in accordance with the clause 3(i)(c) of the Scheme of appointment of Arbitrator, 1996 framed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Hon'ble court read with Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 8. 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, they submits that Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.K. Agrawal, who is a retired Judge of this High Court may be appointed as the Sole Arbitrator. 9. In view of the above facts situation of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to appoint Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.K. Agrawal, a retired Judge 7 of this High Court is appointed to act as the Sole Arbitrator to resolve the dispute involved in this arbitration request between the parties. 10. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.K. Agrawal in the proper address. 11. The remuneration of the Arbitrator shall be settled with the mutual consent of the parties. 12. The arbitration request petition, accordingly, stands allowed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti