The High Court has the jurisdiction under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to appoint an arbitrator when an arbitration agreement exists and the respondent authority fails to comply with the agreed dispute resolution procedure despite the contention of exclusive jurisdiction by a statutory Tribunal.

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 of an arbitrator.

2. The applicant has prayed for the following relief:-

a. 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.

b. 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 applicant, is a company duly incorporated under the laws of India and is one of the largest listed and diversified engineering and construction companies in the country, engaged in sectors such as Power Transmission & Distribution, Buildings & Factories, Water Supply & Irrigation, Railways, Oil & Gas Pipelines, Urban Mobility, Highways and Airports. The applicant is represented in the present proceedings through its authorized signatory and Power of Attorney Holder, Shri Shiv Sharan Kaushik. That the respondent had invited bids for execution of infrastructure development works for Sector 5, 7, 15, 16 and 22 (Phase-I) in Naya Raipur. Pursuant thereto, M/s JMC Projects (India) Limited participated in the tender process and was declared as the successful bidder vide Letter of acceptance dated 19.01.2016. Thereafter, a Contract Agreement dated 09.02.2016 was executed between M/s JMC Projects (India) Limited and the Respondent Authority for a total contract value of Rs. 169,32,73,296/-, with a stipulated completion period of 36 months.

4. During the execution of the contract, the applicant performed its obligations diligently. However, due to continuous hindrances, administrative lapses, delays and breaches attributable solely to the respondents, the progress of work was severely affected, resulting in substantial financial losses to the applicant. Despite repeated requests, the respondents failed to release the legitimate and admitted dues payable to the applicant. That in a completely arbitrary and unilateral manner, the respondent vide its letter dated 18.07.2022 short-closed the contract, without any justification and without settling the outstanding claims of the applicant, thereby causing grave prejudice and financial hardship. Subsequently, pursuant to an order passed by the Ahmedabad Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal under Sections 230 to 232 of the Companies Act, 2013, M/s JMC Projects (India) Limited stood amalgamated with Kalpataru Projects International Limited, and the present applicant stepped into the shoes of the original contractor with all rights and liabilities intact. After the restructuring, the applicant made sincere efforts to amicably resolve the disputes by engaging with the respondent authorities for release of pending dues; however, all such attempts failed due to the indifferent and non-cooperative attitude of the respondents. That being left with no alternative, the applicant invoked Clause 25 of the General Conditions of Contract and issued a letter dated 02.05.2025 seeking immediate resolution of pending issues and release of outstanding payments, clearly stating that failure to do so would result in invocation of the dispute resolution mechanism. Thereafter, the applicant issued a formal Notice of dispute dated 08.05.2025 calling upon the respondent authorities to adjudicate the claims within the stipulated