1 CGHC010481912025 2026:CGHC:37871 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ARBR No. 57 of 2025 Rajat Kumar Tiwari S/o Rasbihari Aged About 35 Years R/o Quater No. 05, Ganganagar Phase -II Mangla, Ward No. 14, Behind 36 Mall, Bilaspur, Tahsil and District – Bilaspur, C.G. ... Applicant versus 1. Nuvoco Vistas Corporation Limited Arasmeta Cement Plant Gopal Nagar, District Janjgir Champa By Senior Manager Nuvoco Vistas Corporation Arasmeta Cement Plant, Gopal Nagar, Janjgir Champa Tehsil and District Janjgir-Champa, C.G. 2. Deputy General Manager (HR) Nuvoco Vistas Corporation Limited Arasmeta Cement Plant, Gopal Nagar, Janjgir Champa Tehsil and District Janjgir-Champa, C.G. 3. Senior Vice President Nuvoco Vistas Corporation Limited Arasmeta Cement Plant, Gopal Nagar, Janjgir Champa Tehsil and District - Janjgir Champa,C.G. 4. Sanjeev Dutta D.G.M. Account Section Nuvoco Vistas Corporation Arasmeta Limited Cement Plant, Gopal Nagar, Janjgir Champa Tehsil and District - Janjgir-Champa, C.G. ... Non-Applicants For Applicant : Mr. Sourabh Sonwani, Advocate. For Non-Applicants : None. Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 24.08.2026 1. This is an application under Sections 11(6) read with Section 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of a sole Arbitrator. PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.08.25 17:50:36 +0530 2 2. The facts, in brief, as projected by the applicant are that the non applicant No. 1 runs cements plant in the name of Nuvoco Vistas Corporation arasmeta limited cement plant at Gopal Nagar Jangjir-Champa, District Janjgir-Champa, C.G. The applicant worked as Transporter and gave his vehicle on rent for transporting goods and the applicant runs his business in the name of the Sani Traveler's and Jayanti Traveler's. The non-applicant through their officers non applicant Nos. 2 and 4 issue work order for transporting order work order No. 4205028555 and 4205027785 on 31.03.2022 for transporting from 26.01.2022 up to 31.01.2024 on rent the driver of the vehicle was hire on the basis on monthly payment. The applicant continues giving services to non-applicant No. 1 the applicant maintained the vehicle and all the necessary maintenance the fuel for the vehicle from his own expenses. Non-applicant Nos. 2 and 4 are the officers of non-applicant No.1 company and look after the business of the company. Applicant No.1 not paid the bill No. 191 to 197 and bill No. 198 to 215 of Jayanti Travel's bill No.19 CG 10 BH 56311, bill No. 20 CG 10 AU 7443, bill No. 22 CG 10 BH 5631, bill No. 23 CG 10 BH 1595, bill No. 24 CG 10 AU 7443, bill No. 25 CG 10 AU 7443, and bill No. 26 CG 10 BL 1528, bill No. 27 CG 10 BH 5631, bill No. 28 CG 10 BH 1595, total payment of amount of Shani Travels Rs. 11,86427.27/- has not been paid. The said rent amount has not yet been paid by the non-applicant company to the applicant. Despite the applicant demanding the fair amount from the non-applicant company several times, the non-applicant company did not pay the above fare amount to the applicant, as a result of which the applicant through his advocate sent a statutory notice dated 16.01.2023 to the non-applicants. on which the non-applicant company sent a reply on dated 31.01.2023. and stated that the driver of the vehicle No. CG10AU7443 had driven the vehicle to Akaltara ahead of village Muralidih while driving recklessly on the main road, the 3 motorcyclists coming from Akaltara were hit and a car accident was caused on 02.12.2022, due to which a child Rajveer Norge died, and the remaining two children suffered serious injuries, as a result pf which a situation of judicial system and road blockage was created and due to the intervention of the administrative officers, the family of the injured and the deceased was given Rs. 2,00,000/- cash by the non-applicant to the family of the deceased Rajveer Norge at the spot itself and in front of the villagers, and the treatment expenses of the injured children Krishi Jogi and Sautam Sonwani were Rs. 4,65,961/- and Rs. 2,22,000/- is spent by the non-applicant saying this, the non-applicant stated that he spent Rs.8,81,963/- saying this the non-applicant did not pay the amount of vehicle rent to the applicant. That, the applicant again sent a notice to the non-applicants on 22.12.2022. and clarified that the vehicle involved in the accident was insured and in case of an accident the expenses are borne by the insurance company only the applicant did not ask the non-applicant to bear the expenses at the time of the accident. That, the even after receipt of the notice by the non-applicant the applicant has still not received the rent. The amount has not been paid the non-applicants are liable to pay the total rent amount of Rs. 11,86,427.27/-. The applicant filed W.P.(C). no. 740/2023 for releasing the rent amount of vehicle before this Hon'ble court for released of payment and due bills of rs. 11,86,427.27 which has been dismissed as withdrawn for the aforesaid liberty on 04.10.2024. On 31.12.2022 due to accident by vehicle of the applicant an offence under section 304 Of I.P.C. was registered against the driver of the vehicle by the police station Akaltara District Janjgir-Champa C.G. and due to the accident, a person was died. The non-applicant authority paid 2 lakhs rupees as compensation to the family of died person and also incurred the treatment expenses of Rs. 4,65,961/- for injured child of deceased person non-applicant No. 1 4 incurred Rs.8,81,983/- for that accident as compensation and the applicant not paid the said amount to the non-applicant No. 1 therefore the respondents denied to pay the vehicle rent due amount to the applicant this matter the reply of the applicant's notice was given on 31.01.2023 to the applicant. That, the incident the non-applicant company not paid the rent amount of the vehicles which are provided by the applicant. The applicant approach before the non-applicant authority and by serving legal notices for releasing the amount of the vehicles rent but the refused to paid the vehicles amount of rent. The applicant also requested to the non-applicant approach the representation of the both the parties to settled the to dispute between the both parties but they ignored to settle the dispute. That, before hire the vehicle on rent both parties prepared agreement about terms of payment and to decide dispute between both the parties as per the terms and condition of the agreement. The business runs by both the parties in District Janjgir- Champa C.G., therefore in the interest of justice dispute be decided between both the parties by the representative and dispute not decide or failed to appoint representative thereafter dispute be decided according to the law of arbitration. The applicant not liable to pay the compensation of the accident because the applicant only gave his vehicle on rent to the non-applicant company and it is the duty of the non-applicant to look after the transportation of goods by vehicle amounting to their directions and orders. The applicant is only entitled for rent of vehicle if any accident incurred at the time of transporting the applicants is not liable to pay compensation. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that both the parties entered into a valid contractual relationship by way contract agreement dated 31.03.2022 which was executable or enforceable in terms maintained therein between the parties. Despite defaulted committed by the respondents as did not to provide the due rent on the vehicles and not agreed to decided dispute arises 5 between the both parties which are resulted the applicants big trouble his loan amount at the time of purchase vehicle to the finance company. Because, the non-applicant refused to pay the balance amount of rent which was due and not ready to decide the dispute by representative of the both parties. It is admitted fact that dispute arises between the both parties therefore it is necessary for the both parties to decided therein dispute by appointing the arbitration in the interest of justice. The applicant has followed the procedure prescribed in the agreement. The respondents did not want to decide the arises dispute between both the parties about the payment of due vehicle rent and also not agree to decide the dispute by the representative of the both parties. Hence the Hon'ble Court is the only competent forum for appointment of Sole Arbitrator in the instant case. The requisite court fee has been affixed with the instant petition. The contract has been executed between the parties within the territorial jurisdiction of the Hon'ble court. 4. Vide order dated 12.11.2025, this Court directed issuance of notice to the respondents. The matter was thereafter listed on 02.02.2026. On 02.02.2026, it was observed that the notice issued to non-applicant No.1 had not yet been served. Non-applicant Nos. 2 to 4 had been duly served, however, none appeared on their behalf. Accordingly, the applicant was permitted to serve notice upon non-applicants by way of paper publication in two leading newspapers having wide circulation in District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that, pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the paper publication was duly made, however, despite such publication, the non-applicants have chosen not to appear before this Court. Today, when the matter is taken up, none appears nor is any representation made on behalf of the non-applicants. 5. Since an affidavit has been filed along with a covering memo, enclosing an application for taking the paper publication on record, and upon perusal of 6 the same, it is evident that the paper publication has been duly made in two leading newspapers having wide circulation in District Janjgir-Champa, where the office of the non-applicants is situated, it is presumed that service of notice upon the non-applicants is complete. Despite having been duly served, the non-applicants have neither appeared before this Court nor is there any opposition to the arbitration request. 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, they submits 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 facts situation of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to appoint 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 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/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti