"1 2026:CGHC:13780 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ARBR No. 5 of 2026 M/s Kalpataru Projects International Limited A Company Incorporated Under The Provisions Of Companies Act And Having Corporate Office At Kalpataru Synergy, 7th Floor, Opposite Grand Hyatt, Santacruz E, Mumbai 400 055, Represented Through Its Authorized Signatory And Power Of Attorney Holder Shri Shiv Sharan Kaushik, S/o Late Sh. Kishan Chand Kaushik, Working As Senior Vice President - Contracts, M/s Kalpataru Projects International Limited. ...Applicant versus 1 - Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran, Represented Through Its Chief Executive Officer, Having Office At Paryavas Bhawan, North Block, Sector 19, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chairman, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran Having Office At Paryavas Bhawan, North Block, Sector 19, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Executive Officer, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran Having Office At Paryavas Bhawan, North Block, Sector 19, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Chief Engineer (E), Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran Having Office At Paryavas Bhawan, North Block, Sector 19, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ...Respondents For Applicant :Mr. Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate. For Respondents :Mr. Animesh Tiwari, Advocate. Printed from counselvise.com VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.03.27 11:44:25 +0530 2 Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 23.03.2026 1. This is an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, “the Act of 1996”) for appointment of an arbitrator. 2. The applicant has prayed for the following relief:- a. b. Appoint a Sole arbitrator as per the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for resolution of the disputes referred by the Parties to the arbitration agreement contained in the Contract. Pass any such other order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 3. The fact, in brief, as projected by the applicant is that the applicant, is a company duly incorporated under the laws of India and is one of the largest listed and diversified engineering and construction companies in the country, engaged in sectors such as Power Transmission & Distribution, Buildings & Factories, Water Supply & Irrigation, Railways, Oil & Gas Pipelines, Urban Mobility, Highways and Airports. The applicant is represented in the present proceedings through its authorized signatory and Power of Attorney Holder, Shri Shiv Sharan Kaushik. That the respondent had invited bids for execution of infrastructure development works for Sector 5, Printed from counselvise.com 3 7, 15, 16 and 22 (Phase-I) in Naya Raipur. Pursuant thereto, M/s JMC Projects (India) Limited participated in the tender process and was declared as the successful bidder vide Letter of acceptance dated 19.01.2016. Thereafter, a Contract Agreement dated 09.02.2016 was executed between M/s JMC Projects (India) Limited and the Respondent Authority for a total contract value of Rs. 169,32,73,296/-, with a stipulated completion period of 36 months. 4. During the execution of the contract, the applicant performed its obligations diligently. However, due to continuous hindrances, administrative lapses, delays and breaches attributable solely to the respondents, the progress of work was severely affected, resulting in substantial financial losses to the applicant. Despite repeated requests, the respondents failed to release the legitimate and admitted dues payable to the applicant. That in a completely arbitrary and unilateral manner, the respondent vide its letter dated 18.07.2022 short-closed the contract, without any justification and without settling the outstanding claims of the applicant, thereby causing grave prejudice and financial hardship. Subsequently, pursuant to an order passed by the Ahmedabad Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal under Sections 230 to 232 of the Companies Act, 2013, M/s JMC Projects (India) Limited stood amalgamated with Kalpataru Projects International Limited, and the present applicant stepped into the shoes of the original contractor with all rights and liabilities intact. After the restructuring, the Printed from counselvise.com 4 applicant made sincere efforts to amicably resolve the disputes by engaging with the respondent authorities for release of pending dues; however, all such attempts failed due to the indifferent and non-cooperative attitude of the respondents. That being left with no alternative, the applicant invoked Clause 25 of the General Conditions of Contract and issued a letter dated 02.05.2025 seeking immediate resolution of pending issues and release of outstanding payments, clearly stating that failure to do so would result in invocation of the dispute resolution mechanism. Thereafter, the applicant issued a formal Notice of dispute dated 08.05.2025 calling upon the respondent authorities to adjudicate the claims within the stipulated time period. However, the respondent No. 4 vide letter dated 02.06.2025 arbitrarily rejected the claims of the applicant without proper application of mind. That aggrieved by the said rejection, the applicant preferred an appeal before respondent No. 3 vide letter dated 10.06.2025; however, the same was also rejected vide letter dated 08.07.2025 in a mechanical and non-speaking manner without assigning any independent reasons. Thereafter, in accordance with the arbitration clause contained in the Contract Agreement, the applicant invoked arbitration vide notice dated 11.07.2025 and proposed a panel of five retired judges, requesting respondent No. 2 to appoint any one of them as the sole arbitrator for adjudication of disputes. That despite a valid invocation of arbitration in terms of Clause 25 of the GCC, the respondents failed to act in accordance with the agreed procedure and instead, Printed from counselvise.com 5 respondent No. 3 vide letter dated 26.09.2025 refused to refer the disputes to arbitration on the untenable ground that the matter falls within the ambit of the Chhattisgarh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983. The said stand of the respondents is wholly arbitrary, contradictory and legally unsustainable, inasmuch as during the pre-bid meeting, the respondents had categorically clarified that the arbitration would be governed by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Thus, the respondents are estopped from taking a contrary stand at this stage. Even otherwise, the scope of work under the present contract includes several components such as fire safety works and other allied activities, which do not strictly fall within the definition of “works contract” as provided under Section 2(1)(i) of the Chhattisgarh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983. Further, certain amendments to the said Act were introduced subsequently in 2019, which are not applicable retrospectively to the present contract. The refusal of the respondents to appoint an arbitrator despite valid invocation of arbitration clearly amounts to failure of the agreed procedure, thereby attracting the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The cause of action for filing the present application arose when the respondents failed and refused to appoint an arbitrator despite a lawful request made by the applicant. The present application is well within the period of limitation and has been filed bona fide in the interest of justice. The applicant has not filed any other Printed from counselvise.com 6 application seeking appointment of an arbitrator in respect of the same dispute arising out of the Contract Agreement dated 09.02.2016. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is just, proper and necessary that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to appoint an independent, impartial and competent sole Arbitrator for adjudication of disputes between the parties. 5. Mr. Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh, learned counsel for the applicant, submits that the present application has been filed by the applicant under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator by this Hon’ble Court, on account of the failure and refusal of the respondent to concur in the appointment of an arbitrator, despite the existence of a valid and binding arbitration agreement between the parties as contained in Clause 25 of the Contract Agreement. 6. Mr. Deshmukh, further submits that the disputes arose between the parties during the execution of the contract, and in terms of the agreed dispute resolution mechanism, the applicant duly invoked arbitration vide notice dated 11.07.2025, proposing a panel of five retired Judges for appointment of a sole arbitrator. However, the respondent, instead of acting in accordance with the agreed procedure, vide its letter dated 26.09.2025, refused to refer the disputes to arbitration, thereby frustrating the arbitration clause and necessitating the filing of the present application. Printed from counselvise.com 7 7. Mr. Deshmukh, further submits that prior to invoking arbitration, the applicant had strictly adhered to the contractual procedure under Clause 25 by raising its claims before the competent authority vide letter dated 08.05.2025, which were arbitrarily rejected by Respondent No. 4 on 02.06.2025. Thereafter, the applicant preferred an appeal before Respondent No. 3 on 10.06.2025, which was also rejected on 08.07.2025 without assigning any cogent or independent reasons, thereby exhausting the pre-arbitral dispute resolution mechanism contemplated under the contract. 8. It is further submitted that the stand taken by the respondent in its letter dated 26.09.2025, alleging applicability of the Chhattisgarh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983, is wholly misconceived, untenable and contrary to the terms of the Contract Agreement as well as the clarification issued during the pre-bid meeting, wherein it was categorically stated that the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 would govern the arbitration. It is further submitted that the nature and scope of the work involved do not fall within the definition of “works contract” under the said Act, and therefore, the reliance placed by the respondent is misplaced. The failure of the respondent to act in accordance with the agreed arbitration mechanism, the applicant has been left with no efficacious alternative remedy except to approach this Hon’ble Court for appointment of an independent sole arbitrator. The present application is within limitation, maintainable in law, and has been filed bona fide in the interest of justice. It is, therefore, most Printed from counselvise.com 8 respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to appoint a fit and proper person as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. 9. Mr. Animesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the present application is wholly misconceived, not maintainable in law and liable to be dismissed at the threshold. The disputes sought to be raised by the applicant admittedly arise out of a works contract executed with a statutory authority of the State, and are squarely governed by the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983. By virtue of Section 7 of the said Adhiniyam, the jurisdiction to adjudicate such disputes vests exclusively in the statutory Tribunal constituted thereunder, thereby ousting the applicability of private arbitration under the 1996 Act. 10. Mr. Tiwari, further submits that the contract in question, as evident from the Letter of Acceptance dated 19.01.2016 and the Contract Agreement dated 09.02.2016, pertains to “Infrastructure Development for Sectors 5, 7, 15, 16 & 22 (Phase-I), Naya Raipur” and forms part of a comprehensive tender issued by a statutory development authority, namely NRDA. The scope of work, as reflected from the tender documents and General Conditions of Contract, includes construction of roads, drainage systems, sewerage networks, water supply pipelines, culverts and other civil infrastructure, which clearly falls within the statutory definition of a “works contract” under Section 2(1)(i) of the 1983 Adhiniyam. Printed from counselvise.com 9 Hence, the present dispute is squarely covered by the said special enactment. 11. He further submits that the applicant, in fact, exhausted the contractual dispute resolution mechanism under Clause 25 of the GCC, wherein its claims were first considered and rejected by the Chief Engineer and thereafter by the Chief Executive Officer upon appeal. The rejection was based on detailed examination of the record, which revealed delays attributable to the contractor, inadequate mobilization of resources, unsatisfactory progress of work and pending obligations during the Defects Liability Period. The contractual authorities, therefore, rightly rejected the claims, and no arbitral dispute survives for adjudication under the 1996 Act. 12. It is next submitted that the applicant’s attempt to invoke the arbitration clause and seek appointment of a private arbitrator is in direct contravention of the statutory mandate contained in the 1983 Adhiniyam. It is a settled principle of law that a special statute governing a specific class of disputes overrides the general provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in authoritative pronouncements including M.P. Rural Road Development Authority v. L.G. Chaudhary Engineers & Contractors, has categorically held that disputes arising out of works contracts must be referred exclusively to the statutory Tribunal constituted under the 1983 Act, notwithstanding the existence of an arbitration clause. Parties cannot, by agreement, circumvent a statutory forum vested with exclusive jurisdiction. Printed from counselvise.com 10 13. He further submits that the aforesaid facts and settled legal position, the present application under Section 11(6) of the Act is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. The applicant, if so advised, may avail the appropriate statutory remedy before the Chhattisgarh Madhyastham Adhikaran in accordance with law, however, it cannot seek appointment of a private arbitrator in derogation of the express legislative mandate. It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the present application at the threshold, with liberty, if deemed appropriate, to the applicant to approach the competent statutory forum. In view of the above, it is submitted that the present application is an abuse of the process of law, filed with the sole intention of evading contractual liabilities and creating an artificial dispute where none exists. The applicant, being in material breach of the contract, cannot be permitted to take advantage of its own wrongs or seek equitable relief from this Hon’ble Court. Accordingly, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the present application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as being not maintainable, devoid of merit, and filed in contravention of the contractual and statutory provisions, along with such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 14. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. Printed from counselvise.com 11 15. Clause 25 of conditions of Contract provides for settlement of dispute and arbitration which reads as under:- \"CLAUSE 25-Except where otherwise provided in the contract, all questions and disputes relating to the meaning of the specifications, design, drawings and instructions here-in before mentioned and as to the quality of workmanship or materials used on the work or as to any other question, claim, right, matter or thing whatsoever in any way arising out of or relating to the contract, designs, drawings, specifications, estimates, instructions, orders or these conditions or otherwise concerning the works or the execution or failure to execute the same whether arising during the progress of the work or after the cancellation, termination, completion or abandonment thereof shall be dealt with as mentioned hereinafter: (1) If the contractor considers any work demanded of him be outside the requirements of the contract, or disputes any drawings, record or decision given in writing by the Engineer-in-charge on any matter in connection with or arising out of the contract or carrying out of the work, to, be unacceptable, he shall promptly within 15 days request the CE (E) in writing for written instruction or decision. Thereupon, the CE (E) shall give his written instructions or decision within a period of one month from Printed from counselvise.com 12 the receipt of the contractor's letter. If the CE(E) fails to give his instructions or decision in writing within the aforesaid period or if the contractor is dissatisfied with the instructions or decision of the CE(E), the contractor may, within 15 days of the receipt of CE(E) decision, appeal to the Chief Executive Officer who shall afford an opportunity to the contractor to be heard, if the latter so desires, and to offer evidence in support of his appeal. The Chief Executive Officer shall give his decision within 30 days of receipt of contractor's appeal. If the contractor is dissatisfied with this decision, the contractor shall within a period of 30 days from receipt of the decision, give notice to the Chairman NRDA for appointment of arbitrator on prescribed proforma as per Appendix XV, failing which the said decision shall be final binding and conclusive and not referable to adjudication by the arbitrator. (ii) Except where the decision has become final, binding and conclusive in terms of Sub Para (i) above, disputes or difference shall. be referred for adjudication through Printed from counselvise.com 13 arbitration by a sole arbitrator appointed by the Chief Executive Officer, NRDA, If the arbitrator so appointed is unable or unwilling to act or resigns his appointment or vacates his office due to any reason whatsoever, another sole arbitrator shall be appointed in the manner aforesaid. Such person shall be entitled to proceed with the reference from the stage at which it was left by his predecessor. It is a term of this contract that the party invoking arbitration shall give a list of disputes with amounts claimed in respect of each such dispute along with the notice for appointment of arbitrator and giving reference to the rejection by the Chief Executive Officer of the appeal. It is also a term of this contract that no person, other than a person appointed by the Chairman NRDA, NRDA as aforesaid, should act as arbitrator and if for any reason that is not possible, the matter shall not be referred to arbitration at all. It is also a term of this contract that if the Printed from counselvise.com 14 contractor does not make any demand for appointment of arbitrator in respect of any claims in writing as aforesaid within 120 days of receiving the intimation from the Engineer- in-charge that the final bill is ready for payment, the claim of the contractor shall be deemed to have been waived and absolutely barred and the NRDA shall be discharged and released of all liabilities under the contract in respect of these claims. The arbitration shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) or any statutory modifications or re- enactment thereof and the rules made thereunder and for the time being in force shall apply to the arbitration proceeding under this clause. It is also a term of this contract that the arbitrator shall adjudicate on only such disputes as are referred to him by the appointing authority and give separate award against each dispute and claim referred to him and in all cases 'where the total amount of the claims by any party exceeds Rs. Printed from counselvise.com 15 1,00,000/-, the arbitrator shall give reasons for the award. It is also a term of the contract that if any fees are payable to the arbitrator, these shall be paid equally by both the parties. It is also a term of the contract that the arbitrator shall be deemed to have entered on the reference on the date he issues notice to both the parties calling them to submit their statement of claims and counter statement of claims. The venue of the arbitration shall be such place as may be fixed by the arbitrator in his sole discretion. The fees, if any, of the arbitrator shall, if required to be paid before the award is made and published, be paid half and half by each of the parties. The cost of the reference and of the award (including the fees, if any, of the arbitrator) shall be in the discretion of the arbitrator who may direct to any by whom and in what manner, such costs or any part thereof shall be paid and fix or settle the amount of costs to be so paid.” 16. Though the respondents have vehemently opposed the present arbitration request petition, but this Court, having regard to the Printed from counselvise.com 16 existence of an arbitration agreement and the failure of the respondents to act in accordance with the agreed procedure, is of the considered opinion that the disputes deserve to be referred to arbitration. Accordingly, the disputes between the parties are referred to the sole arbitration of a retired Judge of this High Court, to be appointed in accordance with law. 17. In view of the above, Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.C.S. Samant 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 a retired Judge of this High Court, to act as the Sole Arbitrator for resolving the dispute between the parties before whom the respondent shall be at liberty to raise all his objections, as has been raised herein. 18. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.C.S. Samant in the proper address. 19. The remuneration of the Arbitrator shall be settled with the mutual consent of the parties. 20. The arbitration request petition, accordingly, stands allowed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE vaibhav Printed from counselvise.com "