• M/s N M Events Through Pro. Mr. Naveen Talwar, Aged About 48 Years v. 1. Agricultural Insurance Company Of India Ltd Raipur Branch
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:7344 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ARBR No. 29 of 2024 • M/s N M Events Through Pro. Mr. Naveen Talwar, Aged About 48 Years, S/o Lt. Ashok Talwar, Address - N.M. Events, Beside Swarnbhoomi Society, Vidhan Sabha Road, Raipur, Teh And District Raipur (C.G.), 492001 ... Applicant versus 1. Agricultural Insurance Company Of India Ltd Raipur Branch (Chhattisgarh), Address - Jeevan Prakash Lic Investment Building, Phase 2, 2nd Floor Jeevan Bima Marg, Pandri, Raipur Teh. And District Raipur (C.G.), 492004 2. Agricultural Insurance Company Of India Ltd Plate B And C, 5th Floor, Block 1, East Kidwai Nagar, New Delhi - 110023, Email - [email protected] ... Respondents For Applicant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Nidhi Agrawal (through Video Conferencing) and Fizi Gwalre, Advocates . For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shobhit Mishra, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 10/02/2025 1. This is an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 11996 for appointment of arbitrator. 2. The facts, in brief, as projected by the applicant are that the applicant is a PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.02.13 18:33:38 +0530 2 proprietorship firm and is engaged in organizing and managing events. The respondent(s) is a Public Sector Undertaking, registered under Indian Companies Act, 1956, engaged in providing various insurance coverage and financial support to the farmers all over India. Respondent No. 2 is is the regional ofÏce in the State of Chhattisgarh of respondent No. 1. The respondent being in the business of agricultural insurance coverage and financial support to the farmers issued an online tender for "Van Publicity" on 02.06.2023 vide Tender no. AIC/RAI/Van Publicity/2023-24/1 for publicity activities in various districts of Chhattisgarh for various seasons. The applicant being the successful bidder of the aforementioned tender had received a Work Order No. AIC/RAI/VAN Publicity/2023/17484 dated 31.07.2023 later revised on 10.08.2023 for 16 Publicity Vans in 33 selected/notified Districts under PMFBY/RWBCIS. It was further specifically provided in tender document clause K (10) read with work order that in case of any difference or dispute same shall be refer to arbitration. As per the tender requirement the applicant has provided security through bank guarantee (BG) Nо. 1347NDDG00006324 issued on 14.08.23 of amount Rs. 93,600/- and after successful completion of the work the BG had to be released along with the full and final payment to the applicant by the respondent. In accordance with the work order, the applicant has satisfactorily completed the work and has submitted the requisite documentation along with the bill reflecting the total amount due of Rs.11,04,480/- as per the terms and conditions. Despite being satisfied with the work of applicant, respondent has only paid the partial amount of Rs. 7,84,760/- and has failed to pay there remaining amount of Rs.3,19,720/- along with the release of BG of Rs. 93,600/- due to which applicant has suffered heavy losses which are still continuing. Since the respondent has neither paid the remaining amount nor released the bank guarantee, the 3 applicant in terms of the work order dated 31.07.2023 and clause K (10) of tender documents issued a notice for appointment of arbitrator and has named Advocate Mr. Harshad Vyas as sole Arbitrator. In accordance with applicable laws and regulations, a notice was duly served upon the recipient. In response the respondent has denied the averments and refused for the appointment of the arbitrator in reply notice dated 16.04.2024. Since there is a dispute with respect to appointment of arbitrator, the applicant is left with no other alternative except to approach this Hon'ble Court for appointment of sole arbitrator. 3. Mr. Shobhit Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, relying on the return filed, submits that after receiving the full and final payment by the respondent for the above mentioned work, the applicant vide its letter dated 03.10.2024 has declared and confirmed that no dues are left in terms of the payments and hence, there exists no dispute between the parties as on date and there is no reason for the appointment or reference of matter to the arbitration thereof. In the said letter, the applicant has withdrawn the notice dated 02.04.2024 giving reference No. 1171/24 and as such, no amount claimed by the applicant is pending against the respondents No. 1 and 2 to the bill issued by the applicant in relation to the aforesaid work. Hence, this petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. A rejoinder has been filed by the applicant stating therein that it intended to participate in another new tender floated by the respondents and for the said purpose, it was required an experience certificate for the previous work done, including the work completed for in the tender for which the present arbitration request was filed. The experience certificate was a mandatory criteria to participate in the new tender process and as such, the applicant had to sign the no dues certificate under coercion and as such, the same cannot be a bar for appointment of the Arbitrator in the present matter. 4 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the materials available on record. 6. Annexure R/1 filed by the respondents is the copy of letter dated 03.10.2024 issued by the applicant which is a no dues certificate specifically stating the work order No. AIC/RAI/VAN Publicity/2023/174844, dated 10.08.2023, which is the subject matter of this arbitration request. Further note has been mentioned stating that notice dated 02.04.2024, reference No. 1171/24 under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, by speed post stands withdrawn and that the applicant will not claim any amount in future for the above mentioned notice. 7. The above conduct of the applicant blowing hot and cold together itself is contradicting his own submissions. On the one hand, the applicant claims that some amount are still left to be paid by the respondents and on the other hand, in order to obtain experience certificate, it has given the no dues certificate to the respondents. Had the applicant intended to obtain the alleged balance amount as above, the applicant should not have given the no dues certificate and once the same is issued, it means that the work awarded to the applicant has been performed and the payment towards the same has also been made by the respondents. The applicant itself has stated that it will not claim any amount in future and on the said ground only, it was granted the experience certificate, as such this Court does not find it a fit case where it should appoint an Arbitrator for resolving the dispute between the parties. 8. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Preeti / Rajshekhar