IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI ARBITRATION CASE No. 114 of 2024 A.P.S. BHATIYA AND ASSOCIATES THROUGH PROPRIETOR AMRITPAL SINGH BHATIYA Versus SMT. AKHTARBAI AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Sanjay Tiwari and Shri Pankhuri Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant.

Shri Sanjeev Kumar Rawat, learned counsel for the respondent No.4.

Heard on : 07.11.2025 Pronounced on : 09.02.2026 ORDER The present application has been filed under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of arbitrator.

2. The relevant facts of the case are that the applicant- A.P.S. Bhatiya and Associates is a Proprietorship concerned its proprietor is a resident of Indore. Respondents are owners/title holders of land which situated in village- Mhow Gaaon, Tehsil-Mhow, District-Indore.

3. The applicant and respondent entered into an agreement on 30.10.2020 for development of land situated in survey No.154/1 area 0.384 hectare, survey No.155/2 area 0.091 hectare, survey No.167/1 area 0.462 hectare, survey No.168 area 0.101 hectare, survey No.154/2 area 0.355 hectare, survey No.155/1 area 0.091 hectare, survey No.157 area 0.506 hectare, survey No.166 area 0.454 hectare and survey No.167/2 area 0.117 hectare, total area

2.591 hectare of village- Mhow Gaaon, Tehsil-Mhow, District-Indore.

4. The said agreement was notarized on 30.10.2020 itself. As per the said agreement, the applicant was required to develop the land of the respondent for construction of a residential colony in accordance with the terms of the contract as well as according to the rules and regulations. As per the terms of the agreement, respondents were required to take permissions from concerned departments for development of colony. As there was pandemic of Covid-2019 at the relevant time, thus, there was restriction on development of colonies during said period. As and when the restrictions were removed, the applicant tried to initiate procedure however, the respondents did not sign the documents/ applications which were required to be filed for necessary permissions for development of the colony. Because of non-cooperation of the respondents, the development work could not start in accordance with the agreement dated 30.10.2020.

5. The applicant had already paid an amount of Rs.11 Lacs vide cheque Nos.611882 and 611883 on 31.10.2020 to the respondent pursuant to the above said agreement. In view of the indifferent attitude of the respondent, the project could not see the light of the day, as such there arose a dispute between the parties. As per the term of Clause 26 of the said agreement, in case of dispute, there was a provision of appointment of arbitrator. As the respondents did not cooperate for development of land, hence, a notice on 16.05.2024 was sent thereby invoking arbitration clause and proposing name of one arbitrator with a request to the respondent to propose name of a person from their side, so as to enable those two persons to appoint a third arbitrator. However, the respondents did not reply to the said notice. In such circumstances, the present application under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 came to be filed before this Court for appointment of arbitrator.

6 Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is a clear dispute between the parties and the arbitration clause is very much present in the arbitration agreement. As regards the issue of limitation he submits that as the COVID-19 pandemic was there thus the entire duration of the same is to be excluded for all the purposes while counting the period of limitation. In support of his submissions he has placed reliance upon the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the cases :-

(i) In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020 order dated 10.01.2022.

(ii) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and another Vs. M/S. Nortel Networks Pvt. Ltd. (2021) 5 SCC 738.

(iii) Geo Miller