"1 2026:CGHC:13781 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ARBR No. 68 of 2025 Ms Mahavir Transmission Limited A Company Incorporated Under The Provisions Of Companies Act And Having Registered Office At Having Its Registered Office At 4510 - 12, 7/33, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi- 110002 Having Its Corporate Office At- C 58, Sector 4, Noida, Uttar Pradesh. Represented Through Its Authorised Signatory, Arjun Tokas, S/o Shri Ranjeet Tokas, Working As Manager- Legal, M/s. Mahavir Transmission Limited, C-58, Sector-4, Noida, Uttar Pradesh ...Applicant versus Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited Represented Through Office Of The Executive Director (S And P), 4th Floor, Vidyut Seva Bhawan, Danganiya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh ...Respondent For Applicant :Mr. Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate. For Respondent :Mr. K.R. Nair, Advocate. 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 Printed from counselvise.com VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.03.25 12:53:11 +0530 2 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, State Government undertaking, had invited bids for supply of ISI marked ACSR Conductors, pursuant to which the applicant was declared a successful bidder and a letter of Intent dated 16.08.2023 was issued for a total contract value of Rs. 8,85,30,919/-. Thereafter, the applicant duly manufactured the material and offered it for inspection, and upon inspection conducted by the respondent between 22.09.2023 to 23.09.2023, the goods were duly accepted and dispatch instructions were issued. Accordingly, the applicant supplied the material at various sites of the respondent and raised invoices amounting to Rs. 8,80,53,109/-. However, to the utter surprise of the applicant, the respondent vide letter dated 30.11.2023 arbitrarily and mala fidely rejected the entire lot of supplied goods and failed to return the same in entirety or make payment thereof, and out of the rejected goods valued at Printed from counselvise.com 3 approximately Rs. 2,76,23,667/-, only goods worth Rs. 1,14,50,592/- were returned while the remaining goods worth Rs. 1,61,73,075/- were unlawfully withheld without payment. Further, the respondent imposed an unjustified penalty of Rs. 60,82,107.37/- on the applicant alleging delayed supply. Despite repeated requests and communications by the applicant seeking return of goods or payment, the respondent failed to take any action. In these circumstances, the applicant invoked the arbitration clause contained in Clause 21 of the General Terms and Conditions of the Purchase Order vide notice dated 13.09.2025, which was received by the respondent on 19.09.2025; however, the respondent failed to act upon the same or appoint an Arbitrator. Hence, in view of the failure of the respondent to comply with the agreed procedure, the applicant has been constrained to approach this Hon’ble Court under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. 4. Mr. Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh, learned counsel for the applicant, submits that the applicant duly invoked the arbitration clause vide notice dated 19.09.2025, however, despite receipt of the said notice, the respondent has neither responded nor taken any steps for appointment of an Arbitrator. The applicant, a company engaged in the power distribution and transmission sector, was awarded the contract pursuant to a tender floated by the respondent, a State Government undertaking, and accordingly supplied the material Printed from counselvise.com 4 after due inspection and approval by the respondent. However, the respondent arbitrarily rejected the supplied goods, failed to return the entire rejected material or make payment thereof, and further imposed an unjustified penalty on the applicant. Despite repeated requests and communications, the respondent failed to resolve the disputes, leaving the applicant with no alternative but to invoke arbitration. 5. Mr. Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh, learned counsel for the applicant, further submits that the arbitration agreement between the parties is valid and binding, and the disputes arising out of the contract squarely fall within the ambit of the said arbitration clause. The respondent’s failure to appoint an arbitrator despite invocation of arbitration clearly attracts the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court under Section 11(6) of the Act. The present application is within limitation, and the cause of action arose when the respondent failed to act upon the arbitration notice. The applicant has not filed any other application seeking appointment of an Arbitrator in respect of the same dispute. Therefore, in view of the settled principles of law and the facts and circumstances of the case, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to appoint a fit and proper person as a sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. 6. Mr. K.R. Nair, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the present application filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and submits that the same is misconceived, Printed from counselvise.com 5 not maintainable, and liable to be dismissed. It is submitted that although an arbitration clause exists in the Purchase Order, the applicant has not adhered to the agreed procedure for appointment of arbitrators as contemplated under Clause 21 of the General Terms and Conditions, which provides for appointment of two arbitrators by the respective parties and, in case of disagreement, an umpire to be appointed. The applicant, instead of following the agreed mechanism, has prematurely approached this Hon’ble Court without exhausting the contractual procedure. 7. Mr. K.R. Nair, learned counsel for the respondent further submits that the disputes raised by the applicant are devoid of merit, as the materials supplied by the applicant were found to be defective and not in conformity with the contractual specifications, and therefore were rightly rejected by the Respondent. The imposition of penalty was strictly in accordance with the terms of the contract due to delay in supply. The respondent has acted bona fide and in accordance with the contractual provisions, and there is no arbitrariness or illegality in its actions. It is further submitted that the applicant has suppressed material facts and has not approached this Hon’ble Court with clean hands. Without prejudice to the aforesaid, it is submitted that the invocation of arbitration is itself not valid in the eyes of law, and therefore, no occasion arises for appointment of an Arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Act. The Respondent has not refused to appoint an Arbitrator but disputes the very basis of the claims raised by the applicant. Hence, in view Printed from counselvise.com 6 of the facts and circumstances of the case, the present application deserves to be dismissed. 8. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 9. Upon perusal of the joint application filed by the applicant and the respondent under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and considering the submissions of learned counsel for both parties, it is observed that both the applicant and the respondent have mutually agreed to waive the contractual stipulation for constituting a three-member Arbitral Tribunal and are in consensus that the disputes between them may be adjudicated by a sole arbitrator. Learned counsel for the parties have further submitted that they have no objection if a retired Judge of this Court is appointed as the Sole Arbitrator and have specifically suggested Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari (Retd.) for the purpose. In view of the above and in exercise of powers conferred under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, this Court is satisfied that the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator is appropriate for expeditious resolution of the disputes between the parties. 10. In view of the above, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari 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 Printed from counselvise.com 7 whom the respondent shall be at liberty to raise all his objections, as has been raised herein. 11. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari in the proper address. 12. The remuneration of the Arbitrator shall be settled with the mutual consent of the parties. 13. The arbitration request petition, accordingly, stands allowed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE vaibhav Printed from counselvise.com "