Madhya Pradesh High Court
Madhya Pradesh Fisheries Federation Co ... vs M/S Anil Yadav (Contractor) Through ... on 13 May, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:14087
1 AC-63-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 13th OF MAY, 2026
ARBITRATION CASE No. 63 of 2025
MADHYA PRADESH FISHERIES FEDERATION CO OP MARYADIT
THROUGH REGIONAL MANAGER SHRI ASHISH
Versus
M/S ANIL YADAV (CONTRACTOR) THROUGH ANIL YADAV
Appearance:
Shri Ashish Choubey, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Ms. Mayuri Jain, learned counsel for the respondent.
Reserved on : 16.03.2026
Pronounced on : 13.05.2026
ORDER
The present application has been filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short "the Act") for appointment of the arbitrator for adjudication of the dispute between the present parties.
2. The applicant is a cooperative federation established by the State Government under the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 as the apex institution of primary fisheries cooperative societies. Its headquarters is situated at Bhadbhada Fish Seed Farm in Bhopal. The work of regional offices is carried out under the control of regional managers/managers. It has nine regional units located at Bhopal, Bansagar, Jabalpur, Gandhi Sagar, Indirasagar, Rajghat-Chanderi, Signature Not Verified Signed by: NARENDRA KUMAR RAIPURIA Signing time: 5/13/2026 6:44:44 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:14087 2 AC-63-2025 Omkareshwar, Madikheda and Rajghat-Sagar. These units are responsible for fish production and various development activities etc. The present application has been filed by Regional Office of M.P. Fisheries Federation Maryadit, Indira Sagar, Narmada Nagar, Dist-
Khandwa (M.P.). The respondent is an individual proprietorship concerned which has taken contract for Mahi water body, District-Dhar and is resident of district-Dhar.
3. In furtherance of above mentioned works, the applicant undertook the process of awarding contract and by following the process an agreement was executed between the applicant and respondent on 08.07.2021 for a period from 07.07.2021 to 15.06.2028 for a total consideration of Rs.1,33,17,336/- for fishing and ancillary works thereto from the designated places.
4. After execution of the agreement, there were some disputed as the respondent failed to make payment in accordance with agreement. Consequently, on 29.09.2023, the applicant passed an order of termination of contract. After termination of contract, a notices was sent by the petitioner to the respondent for payment of dues of Rs.10,73,667/- and when the respondent did not make payment of such dues, a notice was issued on 19.07.2024 (annexure A-3) thereby invoking clause 47 of the agreement anneuxre A-1 for initiating process of arbitration. When the respondent did not give consent for the names proposed in the notice, present application in terms of Section 11 has been filed by the applicant for appointment of arbitrator.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: NARENDRA KUMAR RAIPURIA Signing time: 5/13/2026 6:44:44 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:14087 3 AC-63-2025
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the agreement was executed at Dhar, the water body from where fishing under the agreement was to be done is also situated at district-Dhar and the notice of termination of contract was issued to the respondent by the petitioner to the respondent at Dhar and as there is a dispute of payment of arrears of Rs.10,73,667-, all the ingredients as required in terms of Section 11 are present as there is existence of arbitration in the agreement and the dispute is very much there and this Court has territorial jurisdiction for the reason that the arbitration clause does not specify any seat or venue for arbitration. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on an order dated 21.05.2024 passed by High Court of Delhi in the case of M/s. Kings Chariot Vs. Mr. Tarun Wadhwa (ARB.P. 421/2024).
6. The respondent filed its reply whereby it raised several objections on merits by containing that the execution of agreement is not denied, however, terms of the agreement could not be followed due to extreme whether conditions including irregular rainfall and reduced water level at Mahi reservoir which severally impacted fish production and economic viability of fishing operations. The Covid-19 was also pressed into service. Apart from this a major objection in the reply is taken that the agreement was terminated from 29.09.2023 in gross violation of principles of natural justice and as per clause 17 of the agreement, the arbitration was to be invoked within 6 months form the date of dispute. As the termination can be taken as the date of dispute, the arbitration could have been invoked within 6 months from Signature Not Verified Signed by: NARENDRA KUMAR RAIPURIA Signing time: 5/13/2026 6:44:44 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:14087 4 AC-63-2025 29.09.2023 i.e. the date of termination of contract. However, the arbitration for the first time was invoked by issuing notice dated 19.07.2024, it is thus submitted that the invocation of arbitration is barred by time beyond 6 months period as contemplated in clause 47 of the agreement. Learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on an order dated 08.01.2026 passed by this Court in the case of Anshul Chawla Vs. Taskus India Pvt. Ltd. and others (AC No.105/2025).
7. Apart from the above objections in the reply, learned counsel for the respondent has taken an oral objection about the maintainability of the application by stating that as per clause 47, Civil Court at Bhopal has the exclusive jurisdiction to any dispute arises out of the decision of arbitrator, thus, this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to appoint arbitrator.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9. The main contention of the respondent in the reply is regarding the issue of limitation. It has been stated that the arbitration agreement in clause 47 of the agreement (annexure A-1) would show that arbitration was to be invoked by filing application within 6 months from the date of dispute and as the order of termination of agreement was passed on 29.09.2023, thus, the same has to be considered as the date of dispute. After the date of termination, notice for the first time was issued on 19.07.2024. Thus, invocation of arbitration is beyond 6 months, thus, the same is not permissible. In the considered view of this Court, the Signature Not Verified Signed by: NARENDRA KUMAR RAIPURIA Signing time: 5/13/2026 6:44:44 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:14087 5 AC-63-2025 contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is based on a fallacious assumption that the dispute in the present application is with respect to termination of agreement which in fact is not. The order of termination dated 29.09.2023 has not been objected by the respondent/contractor. He did not raise any dispute against termination of contract. It is only demand of arrears which is under dispute in the present case. The respondent has tried to explain the circumstances in its reply under which he failed to honor the terms of contract, however, did not specify the exact date of denial of payment. The case of the applicant is that despite demand by issuing notice the payment was not made, notice invoking arbitration dated 19.07.2024 was issued. As such, in the considered view of this Court, the order of termination of contract is not the relevant date for considering the initiation of dispute between the parties. It is only when the demand was raised and the amount was not paid, the dispute arose. As such, objection regarding limitation, in the considered view of this Court, is not sustainable.
10. As regards the jurisdiction of this Court, a perusal of the reply would show that no such objection has been taken in the entire reply. In fact, it has also not been denied that the agreement was executed at Dhar which comes within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The Mahi reservoir is also situated within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The resident himself is resident of district-Dhar i.e. within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The arbitration agreement in clause 47 is not happily worded. It neither specifies the seat of arbitration nor its venue.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: NARENDRA KUMAR RAIPURIA Signing time: 5/13/2026 6:44:44 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:14087 6 AC-63-2025 What is specified is that only after decision in arbitration, the contractor can go to Court and for which the jurisdiction has been conferred to the Court at Bhopal as such it is clear that the arbitration clause does not specify any specific seat or venue. In this view of the matter, the seat of arbitration has to be considered as per Section 2(1)(e) as well as Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
11. The reliance as placed by the learned counsel for the respondent on the judgment of Anshul Chawla (supra) is misplaced for the reason that in the said case the facts were completely different. In the said case, the arbitration clause itself provided that invocation of arbitration shall be in accordance with the Rules of MCIA. Thus, the Court held that first the arbitration has to be invoked in terms of Rules of MCIA, however, in the present case, the situation is not same. There is no such reference of any particular rules of any institution for invocation of arbitration. As there is no clarity of the seat and venue in the entire agreement, looking to the place of agreement, place of reservoir where the at pursuant to agreement were to take place and the place of resident of respondent, it is hereby held that this Court has territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the present dispute.
12. Considering the above facts and in view of the above analysis, this Court is of the considered view that arbitration agreement is very much in existence and there is a clear dispute of arrears pursuant to agreement (anneuxre A-1) and no objection regarding territorial jurisdiction has been raised in the reply by the respondent, the present is Signature Not Verified Signed by: NARENDRA KUMAR RAIPURIA Signing time: 5/13/2026 6:44:44 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:14087 7 AC-63-2025 a fit case for appointment of arbitrator.
13. Accordingly, the name of Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Kumar Verma (Retd.) [Mob.9425415062] is proposed for appointment as the arbitrator.
14. Let a declaration in terms of Section 11(8) read with Section 12(1) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 in the prescribed form as contained in sixth Schedule of the Act be obtained from the proposed Arbitrator by the Principal Registrar of this Court before the next date of hearing.
List the matter on 15.05.2026.
(PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI) JUDGE N.R. Signature Not Verified Signed by: NARENDRA KUMAR RAIPURIA Signing time: 5/13/2026 6:44:44 PM