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

th

ON THE 12 OF DECEMBER, 2025 ARBITRATION CASE No. 108 of 2024 MS MEHROTRA BUILDCON P. LTD HAVING ITS REGISTERED AND CORPORATE OFFICE AT 9 INDUSTRIAL ESTATE REWA R Versus NORTHERN COALFIELDS LIMITED (A SUBSIDIARY OF COAL INDIA LIMITED AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Mallikarjun Khare with Ms. Devna Soni-Advocates for the petitioner.

Shri Greeshm Jain with Ms. Seema Rathour- Advocates for the respondent No.1.

ORDER The present petition under Section 11(6) of Arbitration and Reconciliation Act has been filed for appointment of Arbitrator for the disputes arising between the petitioner and the respondents i.e. Northern Coalfields Limited. The respondent 1, is being duly represented in the present proceeding, however, the respondent No. 2 RITES Limited, which was consultant of the project, has been served as per office report, but has not chosen to appear before the court.

2. It is contended in the application under Section 11(6) that an agreement was executed between the parties, vide agreement No. 3, dated 27-10-2015, for various works in connection with P.R. siding at Block- B, Project of NCL, Singrauli. The application has been filed on the assertion that the applicant has already exhausted the pre-arbitration disputes redressal mechanism as per clause 25 of General Conditions of Contract (GCC) and that despite issuing notice as per said dispute resolution clause, in absence of any response by the respondent No. 1, is now before this Court for appointment of Arbitrator. It is prayed that a independent sole arbitrator be appointed to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.

3. The respondents have contested the application contending that they refrain from responding anything on the merits of the dispute between the parties as they are beyond the scope of this proceeding. It is further contended in the reply that there is a in-house mechanism provided under Clause 25 of GCC which has not been followed by the applicant and therefore, the applicant has lost its chance and the right to get the Arbitrator appointed. Formally, the claims raised by the petitioner in the notice and in the petition are denied. However, the application has been contested only on the ground that since in-house mechanism under Clause 25 of GCC section of the agreement has not been followed, therefore no arbitrator can now be appointed.

4. Upon hearing counsel for the rival parties and on perusal of the record, it is seen that the dispute that essentially remains between the parties is whether in view of Clause 25 of the Dispute Resolution clause the petitioner has lost his chance to get the arbitrator appointed by not taking steps as per the said clause. The questioned clause 25 of the agreement is as under:-

"CLAUSE 25 Settlement of Disputes & Arbitration Except where otherwise provided in the Contract all questions and disputes relating to the meaning of the specifications, design, drawings and instructions herein before mentioned and as to the quality of workmanship or materials used on the work or as to any other question, claim, right, matter or thing whatsoever in any way arising out of or relating to the Contract, designs, drawings, specifications, estimates, instructions, orders or these conditions or otherwise concerning the works or the execution or failure to execute the same whether arising during the progress of the work or alter the cancellation, termination, completion or abandonment thereof shall be dealt with as mentioned hereinafter.

1) If the Contractor considers any work demanded of him to be outside the requirements of The Contract, or disputes any drawings, record of decision given in writing by the Engineer on any matter in connection with or arising out of the Contract or carrying out of the work, lo be unacceptable, he shall promptly within 15 days request the Engineer in Charge in writing for written instruction or decision. Thereupon, the Engineer-in