IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN

th

ON THE 13 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 ARBITRATION CASE No. 99 of 2022 PREMIEF SHIELD PVT. LTD.

Versus INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH BHOPAL Appearance:

Shri Shrikant Mishra - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Siddharth Vardhan - Advocate with Shri Prateek Jain - Advocate for the respondent through VC.

ORDER The present petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes arising between the parties.

2. The necessary facts for the purpose of disposal of present petition are that a work order was issued to the present petitioner for providing services on contract basis including security services, etc., in Indian Institute of Science, Education and Research, Bhopal, ('IISER' for short). The work order was issued on 23.03.2017 and the arbitration clause is said to be contained in clause 26 of the said work order which relates to the parties agreeing to submit to arbitration in case of any disputes and differences or disagreements during before or after completion or abandonment of work arising between the parties. The clause relates to appointment of sole arbitrator by the Director of the institute, but in terms of Section 12(5) of the Act of 1996, it is being prayed to this Court that one of the parties to an agreement cannot appoint arbitrator at their wish and therefore, this Court should appoint an appropriate sole arbitrator. The relevant clause 26 of the work order is as under:-

"26 Arbitration:

Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in the contract, if any dispute, difference, question or disagreement or matter whatsoever, shall, before/ after completion or abandonment of work or during extended period, hereafter arises between the parties, as to the meaning, operation or effect of the contract or out of or relating to the contract or breach thereof, shall be referred to a Sole Arbitrator to be appointed by the Director of the Institute at the time of the dispute.

If the arbitrator to whom the matter is originally referred dies or refuses to act or resigns / withdraws for any reason from the position of arbitration, it shall be lawful for the Director of the Institute to appoint another person to act as Arbitrator in the manner aforesaid. Such person shall be entitled to proceed with reference from the stage at which his predecessor left it, if both the parties consent to this effect, failing which the Arbitrator shall be entitled to precede de-novo.

It is a term of the contract that the party invoking arbitration shall specify all disputes to be referred to Arbitrator at the time of invocation of arbitration under this clause. It is also term of the contract that the cost of arbitration shall be borne by the parties themselves.

The venue of arbitration shall invariably be at Bhopal.

Subject as aforesaid the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 and any statutory modifications or re- enactment thereof or rules made there under and for the time being in force shall apply to the arbitration proceedings under this clause."

3. The claim being raised by the present petitioner is that the tender was accepted to provide certain manpower for security services and the petitioner-

contractor was to receive service charges and those service charges are subjected to GST. The GST amount was to be paid to GST authorities, but since the IISER is not registered under GST, therefore GST could not be remitted to GST authorities and the contractor had to be subjected to payment of GST as well as penalty in terms of the provisions of Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and hence he served a notice for arbitration dated 01.06.2022 mentioning therein that since penalty and interest have been imposed by GST authorities on the petitioner- contractor, therefore the IISER should pay the said amount of Rs.17.98 lakhs, else, the dispute be refrred to arbit