Court appointed a retired High Court judge as sole arbitrator with parties’ mutual consent.

The applicant, M/s Techno Prints, a proprietorship firm engaged in printing and publishing, was empanelled with the Chhattisgarh Textbook Corporation for printing educational material.

Pursuant to an e-tender for printing and distribution of miscellaneous material for 2018–19 to 2020–21, the applicant was declared an L-1 bidder and received a work order dated 20 January 2020 for printing 1,40,000 copies of Module-1 booklets under the “Nishtha” Training Programme.

After the applicant completed the printing work and supplied material to various districts, the Managing Director cancelled the work order on 13 March 2020. The Corporation thereafter terminated the relevant e-tender on 18 March 2020.

The applicant’s writ petition challenging these actions was ultimately dismissed on merits on 5 December 2025 after restoration proceedings, following directions of the Supreme Court in relation to the applicant’s earlier proceedings.

The Supreme Court subsequently permitted the applicant to withdraw its SLP and approach the High Court under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Whether the disputes arising out of the work order dated 20 January 2020 should be referred to arbitration by appointing an arbitrator under Sections 11(4) and 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996?

Whether, in view of the parties’ consent, a retired Judge of the High Court could be appointed as the sole arbitrator?

The Court applied Sections 11(4) and 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which empower the competent court to appoint an arbitrator where the agreed appointment procedure has failed or requires judicial intervention.

The Court proceeded on the applicant’s assertion that the work order contained an arbitration agreement and noted that the respondents had no objection to appointment of an arbitrator.

The Court also applied the principle that, where parties agree upon a common arbitrator, the Court may appoint that person to constitute the arbitral tribunal, subject to the statutory requirements of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

The applicant alleged that disputes had arisen from cancellation of the work order and termination of the underlying tender and contended that the work order incorporated an arbitration agreement.

Although the respondents opposed the application, they expressly stated that they had no objection to appointment of an arbitrator.

When the Court sought the parties’ views regarding the appointment, both sides agreed that any retired Judge of the High Court could act as sole arbitrator and specifically consented to the appointment of Justice Arvind Kumar Verma.

In light of this consensus, the Court found it appropriate to constitute the arbitral tribunal without undertaking any further adjudication of the underlying contractual disputes.

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, a retired Judge of the Chhattisgarh High Court, was appointed as the Sole Arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the parties.

The Registry was directed to communicate the order to the appointed arbitrator, and his remuneration was directed to be settled by mutual consent of the parties.