2026:CGHC:2008 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ARBR No. 40 of 2025 M/s Arunodaya Coal Agency, Through Its Proprietor Mr. Kishor Sankhla, Having Its Registered Office At Jamuna Tower, Plot No. C-152/1, Near VAIBHAV SINGH Dakshin Mukhi Hanuman Mandir, Pachpedi Naka, Raipur (C.G.), DVD10 Ai a g :tI 4 i eBt 3: aH :2 l 3 A0 y 0 V 2 s + 6 iSg .0 I0 n 5 N1 e 3 G. d 10 H5 by Chhattisgarh ...Applicant versus

1 - South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Through Its General Manager, SECL Bhawan, Seepat Road, Bilaspur (C.G.)

2 - South Eastern Coalfield Ltd Through Its Area General Manager, Raigarh Area, District Raigarh (C.G.) ...Respondents For Applicant :Ms. Akanksha Jain, Advocate.

For Respondents :Ms. Aditi Joshi, Advocate.

Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

Order on Board

13.01.2026

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(s):

a. Allow the instant application by appointing an independent Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes that has arisen between the applicant and the respondents in the present matter and to consider the claims of the applicant.

b. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper may also be awarded to the Applicant including the cost of the present application.

3. The fact, in brief, as projected by the applicant is that the applicant, a proprietorship firm engaged in mining and earthwork contracting for over 35 years and a registered MSME, was awarded a contract by the respondents, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, pursuant to a tender dated 28.03.2018 for deployment of Heavy Earth Moving Machinery at the Gare Palma IV/1 Open Cast Project, Raigarh Area, and accordingly a Letter of Intent was issued followed by a work order dated 27.10.2018 and agreement dated 08.11.2018 for a period of 730 days; however, the respondents admittedly halted the work unilaterally on 29.08.2019 due to non-availability of land, despite which only a partial survey of work up to July 2019 was conducted and payment released, while the legitimate dues for the work executed in August 2019 remained unpaid, and instead of clearing the final bill and releasing the security deposit upon the applicant’s request for foreclosure of the contract, the respondents arbitrarily and illegally invoked the bank guarantee and recovered an amount of Rs.6,89,043 without granting any opportunity of hearing, thereby violating the principles of natural justice; the respondents’ continued failure to revoke the suspension, to clear the pending bills, and their unlawful recovery actions resulted in disputes between the parties, compelling the applicant to first seek resolution through internal mechanisms as per Clause 13 of the contract and thereafter to approach the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Raipur, where the matter was rejected only on 30.04.2025, following which the applicant, in accordance with Clause 13A of the contract, issued notices dated 01.02.2024 and 07.06.2025 calling upon the respondents to concur in the appointment of a sole arbitrator, but despite the lapse of considerable time, the respondents failed to take any steps for appointment of an arbitrator, thereby leaving the applicant with no alternative but to invoke the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an independent and impartial sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes arising between the parties.

4. Ms. Akanksha Jain, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the disputes and differences between the parties clearly fall within the ambit of arbitral matters arising out of the agreement, inasmuch as the issues relating to wrongful suspension of work, non-payment of the final bill for August 2019, unlawful deductions and recovery of Rs.6,89,043, and the failure to conduct a final survey under Clau