Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Digitally signed by VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Date: 2025.08.28 18:46:57 +0530 2025:CGHC:43107 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ARBR No. 27 of 2025 • Ashok Kumar Mittal S/o Late Shri Piroji Lal Mittal Aged About 59 Years H.I.G.-2 M.P. Nagar, Niharika Road, Korba, Chhattisgarh. Pin- 495677 Through Its Proprietor Mr. Ashok Kumar Mittal, S/o Late Shri Piroji Lal Mittal, Aged About 59 Years, Mobile- 07759222693 versus --- Applicant • Union of India Ministry of Road Transport And Highways, Through The Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, N.H. Zone Raipur Chhattisgarh. Pin- 496111, Phone- 07712436637 --- Respondent ARBR No. 23 of 2025
Legal Reasoning
• Ashok Kumar Mittal S/o Late Shri Piroji Lal Mittal Aged About 59 Years Hig 2 M P Nagar Niharika Road Korba, Chhattisgarh Pin 495677 Through Its Proprietor Mr. Ashok Kumar Mittal, S/o Late Shri Piroji Lal Mittal, Aged About 59 Years Email [email protected] Mobile 07759222693 Versus ---Applicant • Union of India Ministry of Road Transport And Highways, Through The Chief Engineer, Public Works Department Nh Zone Raipur Chhattisgarh Pin - 496111 Email [email protected] Phone 0771-2436637 --- Respondent (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Applicants : Mr. B.K Goyal, Advocate (Through video conferencing) along with Mr. Sajal Goel, 2 Advocate. For Respondent/UOI : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned DSGI and Mr. Rishbh Deo Singh, Advocate Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 25/08/2025 1. These are the Arbitration requests/petitions filed by the applicant under Section 11(6), read with Sections 10(2) & 11(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 2. Heard on I.A. No.01 of 2025, (in both the cases/applications), which are an applications seeking exemption from filing certified copy of the contract. 3. For the reasons stated in the applications, the same are allowed and the applicant is exempted from filing certified copy of the contract. 4. Since the facts an issue involved in the present petitions are identical, they are being considered and disposed of by this common order. 5. By these arbitration requests/petitions, the applicant seeks appointment of the sole arbitrator to resolve the dispute that has arisen between the parties. 6. The facts of the case in ARBR No.27/2025, in brief, are that the Applicant, namely Ashok Kumar Mittal is a proprietorship firm, who is a construction contractor and executing the civil and infrastructure construction works within the country, mostly such works in State of Chhattisgarh. The Respondent/ Non-Applicant is Union of India, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, 3 represented through the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, National Highway Zone, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, who had awarded the subject Contract, inter alia, "Construction of 2- Lane ROB at NH L/C No. AB-72 on Surajpur to Ambikapur Road in Km 357 370 of NH-78 (New NH-43) at Railway Chainage 1925/11-12 on Bishrampur to Ambikapur railway Line Near Jainagar in Chhattisgarh", to the Applicant, for work amounting to Rs. 26.79 crore, with completion time of 540 days, through Letter of Award dated 31.03.2023, for which Contract Agreement signed and entered into and between the parties on 28.07.2023. The applicant treated the subject Contract voidable in law as per Section 17 read with section 19 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, due to egregious fraud played by the Respondent/ Non-Applicant in declaring Appointed date of this Contract but not providing the requisite 'Right of way', which Notice was served on 20.01.2025 to Respondent/Non-Applicant. Quite surprisingly, the respondent later terminated the Contract on 24.02.2025. The Applicant pertinently submits that the governing Clause 26.3 of the Contract Agreement, provides for Dispute resolution through Arbitration proceedings. However, no procedure for appointment/constitution of arbitral tribunal is provided under the said Contract Clause 26.3. Since the Clause 27.1 of the said Contract Agreement, clearly states that "the Courts at Raipur shall have exclusive jurisdiction over matters arising out of or relating to this Agreement", it is the most humble case of the applicant that in such situation where no procedure is prescribed in the Contract for appointment/constitution of arbitral tribunal, this Hon'ble 4 High Court is vest with requisite jurisdiction and powers to appoint a Sole Arbitrator for adjudicating/arbitrating the various disputes arisen in the subject Contract, as per provisions of Section 11(6) read with Sections 11(2) & 10(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for ends of justice to be met. The Applicant, has invoked arbitration as per provision of Clause 26.3 of the said Contract Agreement, and served its 'Notice for Arbitration dated 28.04.2025 upon the Respondent/Non- Applicant, duly notifying therein the various disputes arisen on account of such illegal termination of the Contract. The said 'Notice for Arbitration as well complies the statutory requirement stated under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The above said 'Notice for Arbitration' was emailed and speed posted by the applicant to the respondent/Non-Applicant on 29.04.2025. As such, the applicant humbly prays before the Hon'ble High Court for Appointment of a Sole Arbitrator, as provided under Section 11(6) r/w Sections 11(2) & 10(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for furtherance of cause of justice in the present case, through such arbitration proceedings. This Hon'ble High Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present Arbitration Request, since the exclusive jurisdiction has been conferred upon the Courts at Raipur, as per Clause 27.1 of the said Contract Agreement, as afore submitted. The subject matter of present Arbitration request is a "commercial dispute", as per Section 2(1)(c)(vi) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. 7. The facts of the case in ARBR No.23/2025, in brief, are that the Respondent/Non-applicant is Union of India, Ministry of Road 5 Transport and Highways, represented through the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, National Highway Zone, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, who had awarded the subject Contract, inter alia, "Construction of 2-Lane ROB at NH L/C No. AB-27 (Belbahara ROB) on Mahendragrah to Ambikapur Section of NH-43 (Old NH- 78) at NH Km 264.000 & Railway Chainage 937/14-5 between Udalkachar - Boridand Stations in the State of Chhattisgarh", to the Applicant; for work amounting to Rs. 51.22 crore, with completion time of 770 days, through Letter of Award dated 31.03.2023, for which Contract Agreement signed and entered into and between the parties on 25.07.2023. As per Mr. Goel, learned counsel for the applicant, the respondent/ Non-Applicant, has arbitrarily, irrationally & illegally terminated the subject Contract on 08.01.2025, and the applicant vide its reply letter dated 06.02.2025 rebutted such illegal termination and pertinently appealed to the Respondent/Non-Applicant to forthwith revoke such irrational & unsustainable termination of the subject Contract. It is further submitted that the governing Clause 26.3 of the Contract Agreement, provides for dispute resolution through Arbitration proceedings. However, no procedure for appointment/constitution of arbitral tribunal is provided under the said Contract Clause 26.3. Since the Clause 27.1 of the said Contract Agreement, clearly states that "the Courts at [Raipur] shall have exclusive jurisdiction over matters arising out of or relating to this Agreement", it is the most humble case of the applicant that in such situation where no procedure is prescribed in the Contract for appointment/constitution of arbitral tribunal, 6 this Hon'ble High Court is vest with requisite jurisdiction and powers -to appoint a Sole Arbitrator for adjudicating/arbitrating the various disputes arisen in the subject Contract, as per provisions of Section 11(6), read with Sections 11(2) & 10(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for ends of justice to be met. The applicant, has invoked arbitration as per provision of Clause 26.3 of the said Contract Agreement, and served its 'Notice for Arbitration dated 28.04.2025 upon the Respondent/Non- Applicant, duly notifying therein the various disputes arisen on account of such illegal termination of the Contract. The said 'Notice for Arbitration' as well complies the statutory requirement stated under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The above said ‘Notice for Arbitration was emailed and speed posted by the Applicant to the respondent/Non-Applicant on 29.04.2025. As such, the applicant prays before the Hon’ble High Court for Appointment of a Sole Arbitrator, as provided under Section 11(6) r/w Sections 11(2) & 10(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for furtherance of cause of justice in the present case, through such arbitration proceedings. This Hon’ble Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present Arbitration Request, since the exclusive jurisdiction has been conferred upon the Courts at Raipur, as per Clause 27.1 of the said Contract Agreement, as afore submitted. The subject matter of present Arbitration request is a “commercial dispute”, as per Section 2(1)(c)(vi) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Hence, the present case. 8. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that there is no 7 mechanism provided in the appointment of arbitrator as per the provision of Clause 26.3 of the said agreement. He further humbly prays that for Appointment of a Sole Arbitrator, as provided under Section 11(6) r/w Sections 11(2) & 10(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for furtherance of cause of justice in the present case. 9. Learned Deputy Solicitor General, appearing for the respondents/Union of India, though opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants, however he submit that the respondent shall have no objection if this Court appoints any retired High Court Judge as an Arbitrator for resolving the dispute between the parties. 10. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 11. 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 N.K. Agrawal, who is a retired Judge of this High Court may be appointed as the Sole Arbitrator. 12. In view of the above consensus between the learned counsel for the parties, Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.K.Agrawal, a retired Judge of this High Court is appointed to act as the Sole Arbitrator to resolve the dispute with respect to both the arbitration requests. 8 13. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.K.Agrawal in the proper address. 14. The remuneration of the Arbitrator shall be settled with the mutual consent of the parties. 15. The arbitration requests/petitions, accordingly, stands allowed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE vaishali