SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 12202

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ramesh Sinha, CJ
Esds Software Solution Limited – Appellant
Versus
Chhattisgarh Infotech Promotion Society – Respondent
ARBR No. 56 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Anmol Singh Khanuja
For the Respondents: Rishabh Garg

Under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the High Court has jurisdiction to appoint a sole arbitrator when the parties fail to reach a consensus on the appointment within the contractually stipulated period, provided a valid arbitration agreement exists.

Headnote:(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 11(6) - Appointment of arbitrator - Existence of arbitration clause - Failure of respondent to appoint arbitrator within stipulated period - Disputes are bona fide and live - Court has jurisdiction under Section 11(6) to appoint an independent sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes.

Facts of the case:
An application was filed by a service provider against a government society seeking the appointment of an arbitrator following a dispute arising from a Master Service Agreement (MSA) dated 24.12.2021 regarding an e-Governance project. The applicant alleged that the respondent failed to provide necessary project prerequisites and subsequently terminated the contract erroneously. The respondent denied the allegations, claiming the applicant failed to perform contractual obligations and that the arbitration request was premature due to non-compliance with the pre-arbitral dispute resolution process.

Findings of Court:
The Court noted that an arbitration agreement existed between the parties and the respondent had failed to act according to the agreed appointment procedure. It was held that since the arbitration clause provided for the court’s intervention upon failure of mutual appointment, the court was empowered to appoint an arbitrator.

Issues: Whether the court should exercise its power under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to appoint a sole arbitrator in light of the contractual dispute and the respondent's failure to adhere to the dispute resolution mechanism.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a valid arbitration agreement exists and the specific procedure for appointing an arbitrator fails or is ignored by one party, the court is legally obligated to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 11(6) to ensure the adjudication of the disputes.

Result: Application allowed; retired Judge appointed as Sole Arbitrator.

Table of Content
1. summary of facts and procedural background of the arbitration request. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. applicant's submission regarding contractual performance and failure of dispute resolution. (Para 5 , 6 , 7)
3. respondent's objection regarding non-performance and maintainability of the petition. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
4. court determination on the validity and applicability of the arbitration agreement. (Para 11 , 12 , 13)
5. final appointment of the arbitrator and disposition of the petition. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)

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. Appoint a Sole Arbitrator, to adjudicate the dispute between the parties arising out of the MSA dated 24.12.2021 pertaining to the IPeG Project between the applicant and the Non-Applicant/Respondent; And/or

b. Grant such other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice.

3. The fact, in brief, as projected by the applicant is that the ESDS Software Solution Limited (hereinafter referred to as “ESDS” or “Applicant”), is a public company duly incorporated under the Companies Act, having CIN U72200MH2005PLC155433 and registered office at Nashik, Maharashtra. The applicant is a leading and diversified entity engaged in information and communications technology solutions, including large-scale e-Governance platforms, secure cloud hosting, programme management, operations and maintenance, and allied digital infrastructure services. The applicant is represented through its authorised signatory and Power of Attorney Holder. The respondent, Chhattisgarh Infotech Promotion Society (CHiPS), is a registered society promoted by the Government of Chhattisgarh and functions as the State’s nodal agency for implementation of IT initiatives and e-Governance projects, including those under the National e-Governance Plan (NeGP). In association with the World Bank, the respondent issued request for proposal (RFP) No. 81971/CEO/CHIPS/IPEG/2021 dated 19.08.2021 for implementation of the Integrated Proactive e-Governance System (IPeG Project), aimed at providing a unified digital platform for delivery of government services to citizens. Pursuant to the RFP, the applicant participated in the bidding process and was selected as the Master System Integrator (MSI). Accordingly, a Letter of Intent dated 30.10.2021 was issued in its favour, followed by execution of a Master Service Agreement (MSA) dated 24.12.2021 between the applicant and the respondent, governing the rights and obligations of the parties. The scope of the Project included design, development, integration, hosting, security certification, and operation of a unified citizen-centric platform, along with integration of identity systems, payment gateways, dashboards, grievance redressal mechanisms, and programme management functions. That upon commencement of the Project, the applicant mobilized its resources and undertook development of the platform, including core and extended modules. However, the progress of the Project was substantially dependent on fulfillment of several owner-side prerequisites, including provisioning of UIDAI authentication services (AUA/KUA), Aadhaar Data Vault (ADV), departmental datasets, and payment gateway approvals. That despite repeated communications from the applicant since early 2022, the respondent failed to ensure timely provisioning of these critical dependencies. The absence of these prerequisites materially impeded the progress of the Project and delayed transition to User Acceptance Testing (UAT), certification and Go-Live stages. The Project envisaged milestone-based progression culminating in UAT, followed by security certification through STQC and eventual Go-Live. The applicant submitted multiple milestone deliverables and demonstrated functional modules on various occasions; howev

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top