2026:CGHC:2007 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ARBR No. 61 of 2025 M/s Anant Rice Industries (A Registered Partnership Firm) Unit -II, Arang Tahsil Arang District Raipur Chhattisgarh Through Our VAIBHAV SINGH DVAigIiBtaHlAyV s iSgInNeGd Hby Authorized Partner Mr. Shrawan Kumar Agrawal S/o Late Loknath D10a:t4e3: :24082 +6.00513.105 Agrawal, Aged About 73 Years R/o Anant Rice Industries Nh- 53 Mahasamund Road Arang P.S. And Tahsil Arang District- Raipur Chhattisgarh ...Applicant versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Food Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection Department Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Sector- 19 Rakhi - 1 Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh Pin 492101 2 - Chhattisgarh State Co Operative Marketing Federation Limited Through Its Managing Director 880 Civil Lines Raipur Tahsil Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh Pin 492001 3 - Collector Collectorate Raipur Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh Pin 492001 ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Suryapratap Yuddhveer Singh, Advocate.

For Respondent Nos.1 & 3 : Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Dy. Advocate General.

For respondent No. 2 : Mr. Vikram Sharma, 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. In view of the delay caused in the matter so far by the respondents, for the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator and/or for taking any other suitable measures to adjudicate and resolve the dispute between the parties in aforesaid custom milling agreements (Annexure P-1) through Fasttrack arbitration proceedings in terms of section 29B of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.

b. In view of the delay caused in the matter so far by the respondents, the state/respondent may please be directed to bear the cost of the entire Arbitration Proceedings.

c. This hon'ble Court may please also be kind enough to grant any other relief, interest, compensation, damages & cost of petition.

3. The facts, in brief, as projected by the applicant, who is a partner of a rice milling firm, entered into multiple Custom Milling Agreements with the respondents for milling of paddy supplied under the Government procurement scheme, which provided for dispute resolution first before the Collector and thereafter through arbitration; however, according to the respondents, the applicant, instead of following the agreed mechanism, repeatedly attempted to invoke arbitration prematurely despite the availability of an institutional settlement process under Clause 15 of the agreements and the Chhattisgarh Custom Milling Policy, raising claims of non- payment and unlawful deductions towards GST and porterage, which, as per the respondents, were made strictly in accordance with the policy guidelines and contractual terms; it is further contended that the applicant persistently approached various authorities and repeatedly filed arbitration applications before this Hon’ble Court despite being informed that settlement proceedings before the District Collector were pending and under active consideration, while suppressing the fact that the State authorities were already seized of the matter through Khadya Prakaran proceedings and that any delay occurred due to administrative processes and not deliberate inaction; the respondents submit that the earlier arbitration petitions were withdrawn by the applicant himself on assurances that the settlement process would be concluded and that the present petition, therefore, amounts to an abuse of the process of law, filed to bypass the contractual mechanism of amicable settlement and to compel unilateral appointment of an arbitrator, whereas the dispute essentially relates to accounting and reconciliation of payments under government- controlled procurement operations requiring administrative scrutiny rather than immediate arbitrati