The Chhattisgarh High Court has refused to appoint an arbitrator in a major dispute between Tata Projects Limited and the Chhattisgarh Infotech Promotion Society, holding that the dispute relates to a works contract that must be decided only by the state arbitration tribunal.
The decision was delivered by Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha on February 3, 2026. Tata Projects had approached the High Court under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of an arbitrator after the state authorities failed to nominate one.
The dispute arises from a Master Services Agreement signed in July 2018 for Phase II of the BharatNet project in Chhattisgarh. Under the agreement, Tata Projects, as the lead member of a consortium, was awarded work worth over Rs 3,056 crore to design, supply, install, commission, and maintain optical fibre infrastructure across thousands of gram panchayats.
Tata Projects claimed that the project was delayed due to lapses by state authorities, including delay in granting right of way, late payments, imposition of penalties, encashment of bank guarantees, and cancellation of milestones. Alleging serious breaches of contract, the company terminated the agreement in May 2025 and invoked arbitration. When no arbitrator was appointed by the respondents, the company moved the High Court.
The state government and CHiPS opposed the plea, arguing that the agreement was essentially a works contract involving large-scale civil and infrastructure work such as laying underground ducts and pipelines. They contended that under the Chhattisgarh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983, all disputes relating to such works contracts must be decided exclusively by the state arbitration tribunal, and not under the central arbitration law.
The respondents also argued that Tata Projects could not invoke arbitration on behalf of the entire consortium without consent of other members. They further alleged serious fraud and financial loss to the public exchequer, claiming these issues were not suitable for arbitration.
Rejecting Tata Projects’ arguments, the High Court held that the substance of the agreement clearly showed that civil and infrastructure work was the dominant component, bringing it squarely within the scope of a works contract under the 1983 state law. The court ruled that statutory jurisdiction cannot be bypassed by contractual terms or mutual consent.
As a result, the High Court dismissed Tata Projects’ application as not maintainable, leaving the company free to pursue its remedies, if any, before the state arbitration tribunal.