1 2026:CGHC:16095 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ARBR No. 25 of 2026 M/s Jai Ambey Emergency Services (I) Private Limited Through Its Authorized Signatory Saurabh Sharma, Aged About 31 Years, S/o Shri Rajesh Sharma, R/o Ujhiaani, Etawah, Ujhiani, Uttar Pradesh, 206128, ... Applicant versus Sate of Chhattisgarh Through The Directorate of Health Services, Department of Health and Family Welfare, Government of Chhattisgarh, Having It Office At 3rd Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 492002. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Shikhar Shrivastava, Advocate.(through video- conferencing). For Respondent : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Government Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 08.04.2026 1. This is an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short ‘the Act, 1996’) for appointment of arbitrator. 2. The facts, in brief, as projected by the applicant are that the applicant namely M/s. Jai Ambey Emergency Services (I) Pvt. Ltd., through its authorized person, representing the Consortium comprising M/s. Jai Ambey Emergency Services (I) Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Samnaan Foundation, M/s. Jai Ambey Road Lines, and M/s. Pragati India Roadlines is filing this present application. The respondent is the Directorate of Health Services under the Department of Health and Family Welfare, Government of Chhattisgarh. On 08.07.2019, the respondent invited bids for the work of 108 Sanjeevni PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.04.13 14:32:31 +0530 2 Express for "Operation and management of the Emergency Response Services in the State of Chhattisgarh strictly in accordance with the provisions mentioned in RFP No.01/DHS/2019 Dated 08.07.2019 and Amendment corrigendum No. 01 Dated 29.07.2019 and Letter of Intent (for short, the LoI) reference S.No./DHS/108/Letter of Intent/2019/212 dated 20.09.2019". In compliance thereto, the applicant Consortium was declared the successful bidder and an Agreement dated 31.10.2019 was executed between the parties. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the respondent authority issued multiple written directions mandating uninterrupted deployment of ambulances for transportation of COVID-19 patients and suspected cases. In strict compliance with such directions and the applicable protocols, the applicant rendered continuous emergency services during the period April 2020 to February 2022. For the services so rendered, the applicant duly raised invoices aggregating to Rs.20,10,99,800/-. However, the authority, vide letter dated 17.03.2023, released only a sum of Rs.5,28,31,187/- towards part reimbursement of the COVID-19 related additional expenses. The balance sum of Rs.14,93,25,237/- continues to remain due, having been wrongfully withheld till date without assigning any reason or taking steps to settle the dues, thereby giving rise to a valid and subsisting dispute referable to arbitration under the Agreement. Thereafter, the applicant issued a notice dated 03.02.2026 invoking Clause 5.6 of the Agreement, proposing the name of an Arbitrator and calling upon the respondent to convey its consent within seven (07) days from receipt thereof. However, despite receipt of the said notice, the respondent has neither conveyed its consent nor taken any steps for appointment of an Arbitrator. 3. Clause 5.6 of the Agreement, which provides for arbitration, is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference: 3 "5.6 Arbitration: If any dispute with regard to the interpretation, difference or objection whatsoever arises in connection with or arises out of the agreement, or the meaning of any part thereof, or on the rights, duties or liabilities of any party, the same shall be strived to settled between the authority and the Agency. Failing to resolve the dispute may referred for decision to the appellate authority i.e. Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, Govt. of Chhattisgarh." 4. Mr. Shikhar Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicant submit that in view of the above facts and circumstances, the applicant has no alternative remedy except to approach this Hon'ble Court for appointment of an Arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Act, 1996, as the respondent has failed to communicate its assent or appoint an Arbitrator despite receipt of the applicant's request, and therefore the statutory requirement for filing the present application stands duly satisfied. This Hon'ble Court has jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as the Agreement was executed at Raipur, which falls within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. The cause of action for filing the present application arose when the respondent failed to communicate its assent or appoint an Arbitrator despite receipt of the request made by the applicant. 5. Mr. Shrivastava, further submits that the disputes have arisen between the parties in respect of outstanding payments under the Agreement, and despite invocation of Clause 5.6 by notice dated 03.02.2026, the respondent has failed to convey its assent or take steps for appointment of an Arbitrator, thereby giving rise to the present cause of action. In view of the respondent's failure to act in accordance with the arbitration clause, the applicant is constrained to invoke the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court under Section 11(6) of the Act, 1996 for appointment of a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. 6. On the other hand, Mr. S.S.Baghel, learned Government Advocate submits 4 that the Clause 5.6 does not provide for reference of disputes of arbitration. It merely provides for departmental adjudication by an appellate authority, i.e. the Secretary. There is no valid clause for arbitration under the agreement between the parties. There is no provision for appointment of an independent Arbitrator. Hence, he prays that this petition may be rejected. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 8. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that Clause 5.6 of the Agreement does not constitute a valid arbitration agreement within the meaning of Section 7 of the Act of 1996. 9. The aforesaid clause merely provides that effort would be made for settlement of the dispute that may arise between the parties. It further provides that if the parties fail to arrive at any settlement, then the same may be referred to the appellate authority i.e. the Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, Government of Chhattisgarh, which is in the nature of an in-house or departmental mechanism and lacks the essential attributes of an independent and impartial arbitral tribunal. The clause neither reflects a clear intention of the parties to refer disputes to arbitration nor provides for adjudication by a neutral forum. In view of the settled legal position, such a clause cannot be construed as an arbitration agreement. Consequently, in absence of a valid arbitration agreement, this Court finds no good ground to exercise jurisdiction under Section 11(6) of the Act. Accordingly, this petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti