1

AFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

ARBR No. 15 of 2018

Cube Engitech Consultant Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Director Amit Kr Sinha

Jeevan Lok Complex, Hinoo, Main Road, Ranchi, Jharkhand

---- Applicant

Versus

 Public Works Department Through Its Engineer In Chief, Bridge Zone,

Sirpur Bhawan Campus, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

---- Respondents

For Applicant

:

Mr. Mukesh Sharma, Advocate

For Respondent

:

Mr. Jitendra Pali, Dy. Advocate General

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy

Order on Board

13/08/2021

1.

Present is an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and

Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred as “the Act of 1996”) seeking

for appointment of an Arbitrator for redressal of the grievances between

applicant and respondent.

2.

The brief facts, relevant for disposal of the present application, are that

the applicant is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956

engaged in providing consultancy services inter alia in Traffic Survey,

Techno Economic Feasibility study, preparation of scheme, preparation of

general arrangement drawing for structure, utility identification, soil

investigation, all good for construction drawings, preparation of Bill of

Quantity (BOQ) and other related disciplines.

3.

The respondent State in the instant case had floated a NIT for

appointment of a Consultant for the purpose of providing Techno-

Economic Feasibility Study, Geometric Design, Structural Design, Issue

of Good for Construction Drawings Preparation. The applicant herein

2

having participated in the said tender proceeding was found to be the

most eligible and an agreement as such was entered into between

applicant and respondent.

4.

From bare perusal of the agreement and the nature of tender floated, it

would clearly reflect that the service which was provided to the applicant

was a consultancy service. The agreement entered into between the

parties, Clause-9 envisages settlement of disputes by resorting to

arbitration under the provisions of the Act of 1996 and procedures were

clearly laid down which were to be availed while and before, invoking the

arbitration clause.

5. The contention of applicant is that on account of certain dispute in respect

of non-releasing of the bills raised by applicant, they had approached the

respondent authorities for resolving the dispute by way of arbitration as

agreed upon between the parties by way of an agreement. It is

contended that the respondent authorities did not respond to the

representations and the reminders put forth by the applicant. This non-

response by the respondent led to the filing of the present application

under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for

appointment of an Arbitrator.

6. As regards entering into the contract between the parties, the agreement

between the parties and in the agreement there being an arbitration

clause are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the nature of work

assigned to the applicant by the respondent was exclusively that of

consultancy.

7. Learned Dy. Advocate General however referring to the reply and to the

stand taken by the respondent, submits that whatever work was assigned

to the applicant herein was in respect of construction of a pathway within

3

the city of Raipur. Therefore, the nature of contract entered into between

the parties is one which could fall within the ambit of “works-contract”

defined under Section 2 (1)(i) Chhattisgarh Madhyastatha Adhikaran

Adhiniyam, 1983 (hereinafter referred as “Adhiniyam, 1983”) and

therefore the present application under Section 11(6) of the Act of 1996

would not be maintainable and the recourse available to applicant herein

would be according to the provisions of Adhiniyam 1983, where the

matter has to be raised before the Tribunal established under the said Act

of 1983.

8. Learned Dy. Advocate General ref