Patna High Court

Sarvesh Security Services Pvt. Ltd., through its Director Col. S.N.P. Singh,versusBihar Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. through its Managing Director,

Decided: 17 April 2026
Disposal: DISPOSED
Bench: THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Holding

The Court appointed Justice Jyoti Saran as arbitrator, finding no legal impediment to such appointment under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Summary

Sarvesh Security Services Pvt. Ltd. filed a request case under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of an arbitrator to resolve a payment dispute with Bihar Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. The petitioner alleged that the respondent failed to pay bills for security services despite repeated notices, while the respondent counter‑affidavit alleged non‑submission of statutory documents, forged absentee reports and non‑compliance with contractual clauses. The arbitration clause in the 2018 agreement named the Secretary, Tourism Department, Government of Bihar as the arbitrator, but the petitioner did not approach that authority. The Court examined whether any legal impediment existed to appointing an independent arbitrator and held that none did, given the civil nature of the dispute and exhaustion of available remedies. Consequently, the Court appointed former Judge Justice Jyoti Saran as the arbitrator and directed the parties to cooperate, leaving all substantive issues to be decided by the arbitrator. The request petition was disposed of pursuant to this appointment order.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court can appoint an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 despite the parties' agreement naming a different arbitrator.
Whether any legal impediment exists to the appointment of an independent arbitrator given the allegations of forged documents and non‑compliance by the petitioner.
Whether the petition is maintainable when the petitioner has not approached the Secretary, Tourism Department as stipulated in the arbitration clause.

Legislation cited

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — s. 11(6), 12

Subjects

Arbitration
Section 11(6)
Arbitration Agreement
Contractual Dispute
Non‑payment of Bills
Security Services
Bihar Tourism Development Corporation
Sarvesh Security Services
Appointment of Arbitrator
Forged Documents

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
REQUEST CASE No.3 of 2025
======================================================
Sarvesh Security Services Pvt. Ltd., through its Director Col. S.N.P. Singh,
(Male, Aged 77 years), S/o Late H.P. Singh Having its Registered office at -
413, Mayur Vihar, Pocket E, Phase 2, Delhi-110091.

... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. Bihar Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. through its Managing
Director, Bir Chand Patel Path, Patna 800001 (Bihar).
2. The Managing Director, Bihar Tourism Development Corporation Ltd., Bir
Chand Patel Path, Patna 800001 (Bihar).
3. General Manager, Bihar Tourism Development Corporation Ltd., Bir Chand
Patel Path, Patna 800001 (Bihar).
4. Manager Administrative, Bihar Tourism Development Corporation Ltd., Bir
Chand Patel Path, Patna 800001 (Bihar).

... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Awadhesh Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Shashi Kant Amar, Advocate
Mr. Awadhesh Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anukriti Jaipuriyar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 17-04-2026

This request case has been filed under Section 11(6)

of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter ‘1996

Act’) by Sarvesh Security Services Pvt. Ltd. with a prayer for

appointment of an arbitrator for adjudication of dispute between

the parties in accordance with the Arbitration Agreement as

contained in Clause 3 of the agreement dated 31.07.2018.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that an agreement

was executed between the petitioner and the Respondent Bihar

Tourism Development Corporation Limited for providing
Patna High Court REQ. CASE No.3 of 2025 dt.17-04-2026
2/8

security services. The respondent failed to make timely payment

of the bills for security services to the petitioner. The petitioner

wrote a letter dated 23.09.2019 to the respondents for making

payment, but to no avail. Thereafter, the petitioner invoked the

Arbitration Clause on 31.07.2018. However, the respondents

failed to take any cogent action and to respond to the invocation

of the Arbitration Clause. Finding no other alternative remedy

available but to move this Court, the petitioner has filed the

present petition for appointment of an independent Arbitrator.

3. The learned counsel for the respondents has filed

counter affidavit wherein, in Paragraph Nos. 4 to 21, it is stated

as follows:

“4. That the statements made in paragraph
no. 1 of the request petition it is
submitted that the clause 3 of the
agreement dated 31.07.2018 provides
the Secretary, Tourism Department,
Government of Bihar as the Arbitrator
to resolve the disputes between the
parties. But the Petitioner has never
filed the application before the
Secretary, Tourism Department for
resolution of dispute. Hence, the present
application is misconceived and fit to be
set aside.
5. That the statements made in paragraph
no.2 & 3 of the request petition it is
submitted that they are the submissions
of the petitioner and requires no
comment.
Patna High Court REQ. CASE No.3 of 2025 dt.17-04-2026
3/8

6. That the statements made in paragraph
no.4 & 5 of the request petition relates
to the Petitioner, hence requires no
comment.
7. That the statements made in paragraph
nos.6 to 8 of the request petition is
matter of record.
8. That the statements made in paragraph
no.9 of the request petition it is
submitted that it is totally misleading
and incorrect hence denied. It is stated
that the Petitioner vide Letter dated
23.09.2019 requested the due payment
of past ten months from the Respondent
and informed them that all the statutory
payments of the security guards are
done by the Petitioner. However, despite
the payments of all the bills presented
till November, 2021, the security
agency-the Petitioner- have never
submitted the details of payment under
the head of EPF & ESIC of the security
guards to the Corporation showing the
compliance of C1.24 of the agreement
dated 31.07.2018.
9. That it is further submitted that the bill
of December, 2021, January, 2022 and
bills till 09.02.2023 was presented for
clearance in the Corporation. But, since
the Petitioner did not submit the duly
verified absentee report of the security
guards by the concerned manager along
with the bills to the Corporation, the
same was objected by the account
department of the Corporation and
could not be cleared. Thereafter, the
Petitioner was directed to comply with
the requirement and furnish the duly
verified absentee report by the
Patna High Court REQ. CASE No.3 of 2025 dt.17-04-2026
4/8

concerned manager along with the
raised bills.
10. That it is pertinent to note here that
when the Petitioner then submitted such
verified absentee report along with bills
in the office of the Corporation then the
Manager, Bodh Gaya Node -2 raised an
objection on the absentee report stating
that his signature was forged on the
absentee report which was submitted
and that he has never put his signature
on such forged document. Hence, a
fraud has been committed by the
Petitioner by submitting a forged
document for clearance of their bills
and fraud vitiates Arbitration.
11. That it is submitted that the Respondent
then immediately sent the show-cause
notice to the Petitioner and demanded
the true verified absentee report of the
security guards vide Letter no.241/22
dated 04.07.2022 and Letter no.1319/22
dated 09.07.2022. But the Petitioner has
not submitted any verified reports till
date due to which the payment of Bills
from December, 2021 till 09.02.2023,
that is, 14 months 10 days, could not be
done. Therefore, it is totally due to the
fault of the Petitioner that the payment
of the due bills is still pending.
12. That it is further submitted that the
Respondent corporation has demanded
the name-wise list of security guards
who got the benefit of EPF and ESI from
the Petitioner vide Letter no.2823/23
dated 22.09.2023 but till date the
Petitioner has not provided the list.
13. That the statements made in paragraph
no.10 of the request petition it is
Patna High Court REQ. CASE No.3 of 2025 dt.17-04-2026
5/8

submitted it is misconceived hence
denied. It is stated that the Petitioner
had submitted a bill of Rs.12,91,650/-
for the month of August, 2020 to
October, 2020 for the security guards
deployed in different properties of the
corporation. But when the bill was
examined it was found that there was no
official order for deputation of security
guards in Brahmakund, Rajgir, Hotel
Vanavar Vihar, Nagarjun Vihar and
Hotel Patliputra Ashok, Patna,
therefore, after deduction of the wages
of the security guards in these three
properties the payment of Rs.6,53,232/-
was made to the Petitioner.
14. That the statements made in paragraph
no.11 of the request petition is matter of
record.
15. That the statements made in paragraph
no.12 of the request petition is incorrect
hence denied. It is stated that neither
such letter nor any bill with revised rate
of minimum wages have ever been
received by the Respondents.
16. That the statements made in paragraph
no.13 of the request petition is
misconstrued hence denied. It is stated
that no sooner the notice for invoking
arbitration clause was received by the
respondents that the Petitioner file the
present petition. So, the notice was not
replied since the matter was sub judice.
However, if the Petitioner furnish the
requisite documents which was
demanded by the respondents, the due
bills may be processed as per the law
without going into the lengthy litigation.
17. That the statements made in paragraph
Patna High Court REQ. CASE No.3 of 2025 dt.17-04-2026
6/8

no.14 of the request petition is
misconceived hence denied. It is stated
that the Petitioner knowingly and with
consent has agreed to appoint the
Secretary, Tourism Department as the
Arbitrator to resolve the disputes
between the parties, therefore, this act
as an exception to Section 12 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
and there is no bar for the Secretary,
Tourism Department to act as an
arbitrator.
18. That the statements made in paragraph
no.15 of the request petition it is stated
that it is totally incorrect and erroneous
hence denied. It is stated that the claim
of the petitioner is inflated and beyond
the terms of the contract which cannot
be granted. Besides, till the Petitioner
submit the requisite documents none of
the due bills of the Petitioner be
processed.
19. That the statements made in paragraph
no.16 & 18 of the request petition it is
submitted that it has already been
answered in the aforesaid paragraph
no.17 of this affidavit which may be
referred to avoid repetition.
20. That the statements made in paragraph
no.17 of the request petition relates to
the jurisdiction and does not require any
comment.
21. That the statements made in paragraph
no.19 of the request petition is incorrect
hence denied. It is stated that Clause 3
of the agreement dated 31.07.2018
provides the Secretary, Tourism
Department, Government of Bihar as
the Arbitrator to resolve the disputes
Patna High Court REQ. CASE No.3 of 2025 dt.17-04-2026
7/8

between the parties. But the Petitioner
has never filed the application before
the Secretary, Tourism Department for
resolution of dispute. Hence, the present
application is misconceived and fit to be
set aside.”

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find

that there is no legal impediment in the adjudication of dispute

by the Arbitrator, more particularly when the dispute arises out

of the agreement which is being civil in nature and the petitioner

has exhausted the channel available for resolution of the dispute.

5. In view of such finding as arrived at and on

consensus of both the learned counsel for the parties, Hon’ble

Mr. Justice Jyoti Saran, former Judge of this Court, is appointed

as learned Arbitrator to adjudicate all disputes arising out of

agreement entered into between the parties to the lis.

6. All the pleas and issues raised, on merits, are left

open to be considered and decided by the learned Arbitrator.

7. The learned Arbitrator shall be entitled to fee as

per the Schedule of the Act.

8. Since the dispute arises out of an agreement of the

year 2018, the hearing be expedited.

Parties undertake to fully cooperate and not to take

any unnecessary adjournment.
Patna High Court REQ. CASE No.3 of 2025 dt.17-04-2026
8/8

The issue of limitation, if any, is left open to be

raised before the learned Arbitrator.

9. The grounds taken by the respondents in the

counter affidavit shall also be considered by the learned

Arbitrator while adjudicating the dispute.

10. Joint Registrar (List) is directed to communicate

the order to the learned Arbitrator.

11. Learned counsel for the parties also undertake to

communicate the order to the learned Arbitrator.

12. The learned Arbitrator shall issue notice to the

parties.

13. The Request Petition stands disposed of in the

above terms.

14. Interlocutory Application(s), if any, shall stand

disposed of.

(Sangam Kumar Sahoo, CJ)
P.K.P./-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date 18.04.2026
Transmission Date

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…