AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Arbitration Appeal No. 10 of 2023 Reserved on 12.07.2024 Pronounced on 22.07.2024 M/s G.V. Rathod, A Partnership Firm registered under the relevant provisions of the partnership Act, 1932, Through its partner Mr. Devendra Rathod, S/o Late Shri G.V. Rathod, Resident of Kelkarpara, Station Road Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Appellant Versus

1. Chhattisgarh Tourism Board, Through Its Managing Director, 2nd Floor, Udyog Bhawan, Ring Road No. 1, Telibandha, Raipur

492006, Chhattisgarh.

2. State Of Chhattisgarh through Its Secretary, Ministry Of Tourism, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondents For Appellant :Shri Ankit Singhal, Advocate appears along with Shri Ashish Mittal, Advocate For Respondent No.1 :Shri Rishabh Garg, Advocate For State/Respondent No.2 :Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Dy. Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal &

Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi

CAV Judgment

Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred by the Appellant- M/s. G.V. Rathod, a Partnership Firm, under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act, 1996’) read with Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, questioning the legality and propriety of the order dated 02.02.2023 passed by the Commercial Court (District Level), Nava Raipur, Chhattisgarh in Arbitration M.J.C. No.10 of 2022, whereby, the application filed by the Appellant under Section 34 of the Act, 1996, questioning the order dated 18.04.2022 passed by the Sole Arbitrator holding the same to be barred by jurisdiction, has been dismissed.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that, a Tender was invited by the Respondent- Chhattisgarh Tourism Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Board’) on 13.09.2006 for re-construction of Project Hostel Building at Machadoli, Korba on percentage basis for a total value of work amounting to Rs.1,01,66,000/- (Rs. One crore one lac and sixty six thousand only) and, the offer made by the Appellant was accepted and, accordingly, an agreement between the parties was executed on 26.10.2006 and thereafter, the Work Order was issued on 27.10.2006, which was to be completed within a period of 11 months. The alleged contract work, however, could not be completed within the stipulated time and, according to the the Appellant, it was owing to the default committed by the Board and when the matter was not settled with regard to the dispute arose between them, a notice was issued by the Appellant under Section 21 of the Act, 1996, but no fruitful purpose was served, which compelled the Appellant to approach this Court for appointment of Arbitrator as per the provisions prescribed under Section 11(6) of the Act, 1996, while invoking the Arbitration Clause 29. The said application seeking appointment of Arbitrator was allowed by this Court vide order dated 16.01.2017 (Annexure A-3) in Arbitration Application No. 89 of 2013 and Shri Justice R.N. Chandrakar was appointed as an Arbitrator and while allowing the application, as such, the parties were given liberty to raise all the grounds, which are available to them, before the said Arbitrator. The Arbitrator so appointed has, however, refused to arbitrate the matter, owing to which, Shri Justice L.C. Bhadoo, a retired Judge of the High Court of Chhattisgarh was appointed in his place vide order dated 15.07.2019 (Annexure P-4) in Arbitration Application No.30 of

2018.

3. Before the Arbitrator, the claim made by the Appellant was denied by the Respondent-Board, while questioning the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator, by submitting, inter alia, that since the alleged work is a “Works Contract” defined under Section 2(1)(i) of the Chhattisgarh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Adhiniyam), therefore, the dispute as arose between the parties was required to be referred to the Arbitration Tribunal as per the provisions prescribed un