HerLrd Mr'. S. Ram Babu, learned counsel for the applir.rant, and Ms v. Urna Dev i

Order

HerLrd Mr'. S. Ram Babu, learned counsel for the applir.rant, and Ms. V. Urna Dev i. learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This a;plication is filed under Section - U (6) (c) of the Arbitration and []onciliation Act, 1996 (for short ,Act, t!r96,), to appoint three (03) Arbitrators to adjudicate the disputcs betrveen the parties.

3. CONTI]NTIONS OF THE APPLTCANT: i) 'l-hc rrpplicant is a Company incorporated ul dcr the Companier; .Act. 1956. It is engaged in the design. cnginccr.ing and supply of steel plant equipment. It has entered into a Contr.rct with respondent dated 28.04.2017 for setting up Shear, Leveler. Roller Hearlh Furnace. lloller Pressure Quench, Cooling Beds etc., and its Auxiliaries (Phasr -l I) at the respondent premises in Hl.derabad ii) 1'he sair contract was for design, supply and comrnis;sioning of various plant equipment and technological structures. h is the specific cc)ntentic n of the applicant that as per the terms of the contract, r.hg- +pplicant has agreed to undertake desig.n and 2 KL,J Arb. Appl.No.267 of 2024 engineering, manufacture and supply of plant and equipment, technological structures, supply of refractory,s, civil and structural consultancy work, intermediate storage, insurance and handling, erection work, testing, start-up and commissioning and demonstration of performance guarantee parameters of the facilities. Time is the essence of the contract. Adhering to the stipulated timeline, the applicant invested substantial funds and allocated signihcant resources for execution of the contract. iii) In terms of Clause - 4 of the Special Conditions of the Contract, site delivery of plant, machinery and equipment shall starl from 8th month and shall be completed by l4th month from the effective date i.e., 28.04.2017. Erection, stan up and putting into commissioning (Provisional Acceptance) shall starl from the 12th month and shall be completed by lSth month from2g.04.2017. irr) It is the specific contention of the applicant that project completion was delayed by 26 months due to various reasons attributable to the respondent, such as civil and Structural works delay, utilities and cranes readiness delays, equipment delivery and 3 KL..I Arb.Appl.No..167 of 2024 unavailab,ilily oI slab, for which the applicant incurred additic,nal costs due to project prrlongation.

v) A meeting was held between the parties, wherern it was agreed that the delay on the parl ofthe respondentin handir.rpr over the site for erection ttie PAC (Provisional Acceptance Cerlifi ci,.te) dates originally targeled lbr 28.04.2019 for Phase-II and 28.10.2019 for Phase-I rreeded lo be arranged. It was also proposed that PAC for both the phases rvas to be bonducted by 28.08.2020 baseC on the anticipatc d avairability of civil front for erection by July. 1,1019 and make the pro.iecl cconomically efficient for the respoLtdent b1 utilizing the plate:, produ:cd liom Phase I in Phase II instead of procuring the same seprrratell'. vi) 'J'hele \\'as an exchange of letters between tl-re applicant and the respondcnt. l'he schedule was extended due to several factors, including delavs in civil and structural works, readiness o1'ttilities & cranes, :qu iprr:r.rt delivery issues, slab unavailability, dengue pandemic, impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, flooding in tlrc cellars, and fire rlamage The said reasons were explained to the re spondent vide letter dated 27.02.2020. l 4 KL,J Arb. Appl.N o.267 of 2024 vii) On 12.03.2020, the respondent sent a lerter to the applicant extending the time for compretion of the contract from August, 2020 to 31.03.2021. The respondent in contrary to the agreement and by exercising its dominant position, reserved its right to impose Liquidated Damages, even though the said extension was provided due to the reset of'erection start date' due to failure of the respondent to release the completed civil and structural work as per contractual timelines. The respondent, for the reasons attributable to it, requested the applicant to defer the works due to absence of erection l.ronts for erection and relevant constructions were yet to be completed. viii) The applicant has also sent invoices from time to time against furnace for heating supply of plant, machinery and equipment of the contract ' vide letter dated 04.06.2021, the respondent extended time for completion of the contract from 31.03.2021 to 3l.Og.2)2l. The same was again extended to 30.09.2021. Vide letter dated

04.08.2021,, the applicant informed the respondent that the consolidated outstanding amount due as on date is about Rs.61.00 Million which are pending since 29.07.2021 and, therefore, the applicant requested the respondent to release the said outstanding 5 KL,J Arb-Appf .No 261 of 2024 payment immediately. Similar letters were addressed by the applicant dated 1l 09.2021 and28.12.2021. irl Vidc letter dated 15.03.2022, the resltondent extended timelincs up t,r 3 | .12.2021 for completion of the cor Lract and amended cont'act for erection, staft up, al.td putl.ing into commissior.ring of the contract. Vide the said amcudt'nent, the respondent also stated that the liquidated damages deductt:d against commissioning rre to be reviewed at the end of the project ;rs pcr the Contract Provisior-rs in view of deferment in initial contractual site handovel by the lespondent and other relevant delays on botl sides. x) Tl.re espondent released only part paynrcnt. tr'ide l,etter dated 08.1l.2O:2, tl.re applicant requested the respondent Io release due payrncnts and to waive the liquidated damages as the rlelays are beyond thc cont rol ol the applicant in spite of dedicated c|-f<,rts. Vide letter dated )ii05.2023, the respondent floated the applicant's proprietary and confidential drawings, including drawings irr the open market firr proc, rrcrnent of work rolls and other associated pirrts in the tender. 'l'he rcs rondent has issued a final acceptance cerlifir:ate to the applicanl vide le tter dated 3 I .05.2023 . On 11.07 .2023, the r,,:spondent sent an t>mail to the applicant informing that it would be imposing I \. 6 KL,J Arb.Appl.No.267 of 2024 liquidated damages @ 10% due to the delayed commissioning of the contract xi) Vide letters dated 12.07.2023 and09.10.2023, the applicant informed the respondent that it has imposed liquidated damages wrongfufiy. The applicant has also filed an application under Section - 9 of the Act, 1996 vide C.O.P. No.75 of 2023, and the leamed Commercial Court initially granted injunction and thereafter the same was dismissed. The applicant had filed Commercial Court Appeai vide C.C.A. No.39 of 2024 before this Court. A Division Bench of this Court disposed of the same vide order dated03.01.2021. xii) Vide the aforesaid letter i.e., dated 09.10.2023, the applicant sent a letter to the respondent with a request to release contractual payments towards PAC and Final Acceptance Ce(ificate and outstanding progressive payments. On 08.11.2023, the applicant met the Delay Analysis Committee of the respondent and explained the delay and the reasons for the said delay etc. The applicant had issued a notice dated 11.12.2023 invoking the Arbitration Clause under Article - 9 of the contract read with Clause - 40 of the GCC to Intemational Centre for Alternative Dispute Resolution (ICADR) and I : n 1 KL,,I Arb.Appl.No.l..67 of 2024 the respondent. There was no response from the rel:pondent' Therefore, the al,plicant filed the present application'

4. CONTENTIONSO F THE RESPONDENT: i) Whereas, the respondent has filed counter contending that there war; delay in the execution of the project by the applLcant and that thert: was l)oor ptanning and mismanagement by the rrpplicant' There was also delay in submission of civil and structural :lrawings' There was poo r erection work leading to incidents, likt" furnace collapse and fir:. Thcre was delay in supply of criticai er';uipment. Therefor,:, the rr:spondent has imposed liquidated darnages in terms of the Contlact. '[lt.'rc is no error in it. ii) tt is lurther contended by the respondent that proprietary rights o'rer F n linecring drawings were submitted as 1la 11 of the contract dcliverrble and, hence, the respondent has right t.o use them for the t)rocurement of spare pafts. The presertt applicaticn is not maintainable since the applicant has to approach ICADII', and on exhausting alte'native remedy,, it has to file the plesent application' The applicant d d not do so. With the said contentions, the r':spondent sought to dismi ;s the present application. 8 KL,J Arb.Appl.No.267 of 2024 ANALYSIS AND F'INI)INGS O F THE COURT:

5. In view of the aforesaid rival submissions, there is no dispute with regard to the execution of agreement dated 2g.04.2.017 by and between the applicant and the respondent on the specific terms and conditions mentioned therein. The same is for the pulpose of setting up Single stand Reversing 4-HI wide plate Hot Rolling Mill for Rolling of Plates (phase-I) at the respondent premises in Hyderabad.

6. According to both the applicant and the respondent, there was a delay in the execution of the said project. On consideration of the reasons mentioned by the applicant for delay, the respondent has extended timelines from time to time. The applicant stated the aforesaid eight (08) reasons for the delay in execution of the project, i.e., delays in civil and structural works, readiness of utilities and cranes, equipment delivery issues, slab unavailability, dengue pandemic, impact of COVID-19 pandemic, flooding in the cellars and fire damage. But, according to the respondent, there was poor planning, mismanagement, delay in submission of civil and structural drawings, poor erection work reading to incidents, rike fumace collapse and fire, and delayed supply ofcritical equipment. :3 l ;..: ,I 9 KL,,J Arb-Appl.No.2ti7 of 2024

7. The af:resaid aspects are factual facts, arbitrable disputes which th<: Arbitrator has to consider. On the said grou rds, the respondent cannct oppose the present application.

8. Article - 9 of the Contract Agreement, which is re lerred to Clause - 4() o1' he General Conditions of the Contract, de:als with 'arbitration' and he same is extracted as under: "40.0 ARBITRATION

40.1 ,{ny rlispute(s) or difference(s) whatsoever arises under ur olrt of or in connection with this Cor-tlract, or in respect of any defined legal relationship assoc ated thereu,ith or derived therefrorrt, the parties agree resolve/settle the same by subnritting that r ispute to arbitration iu accordance rvith the Interr ational Centre lor Altemative Dispute Resolution (ICADR) Arbitration Rules 1996. 'I'he authority to appoint the arbitrator(s) shall be the Lrternational Centre fcrr Altemative Disputc Rcsol rtion (ICADR). I'he international center for alternative dispLlte resolrtiou rvill provide administrative serliccs in accor lance with ICADR Arbitration Rules 1996 Ihe I rnguage of the arbitration proceeding shall be Engli Jr lhe place of arbitration proceedings sliall bc Telangana. India. -I l0 KL,J Arb.Appl.No.267 of 2024 Note: In respect of pSUs/Govemment organizations, lhe DpE guidelines shall be applicable. Work under the contract shall be continued by the contractor during the arbitration proceedings, unless otherwise directed in writing by thd purchaser or unless the matter is such that the ,work cannot possibly be continued until the decision of the arbitrators is obtained, and save as those which are otherwise expressly provided in the Contract, no payment due or payable by the purchaser shall be withheld on account of such arbitration proceedings, unless it is the subject matter or one of the subject matter thereof.

40.2 Work under the Contract shall be continued by the Contractor during the arbitration proceeding, unless otherwise directed in writing by the Purchaser or unless the matter is such that the work cannot possibly be continued until the decision of the arbitrators is obtained, and save as those which are otherwise exprcssly provided in the Contract, no payment due or payable by the purchaser shall be withheld on account of such arbitration proceedings, unless it is the subject matter or one of the subject matters thereof.,'

9. Article - 8 of the Contract Agreement deals with .Liquidated Damages' and the same is extracted as under: "8.1 Liquidated D of Facilities amages due to Delay in Como Ietion a ;i 1l K1-.. Arb.Appl.No.l)67 of 2024 I-iquittated damages shall be levied against JD in case rf unsatisfactory or delay in supplies and execu,ion ofthe Joint development Project Contraol beyond the scheduled date of PAC. LD shall be Ieviat le (A lyo per week or part thereof subject to a nraxit ium of 10%6 of Joint development Project Oontrrct price with Taxes, Duties, levies, cess eto. The I urchaser may, without prejudice to any other metht,d of recovery, deduct the amount of such dama 3cs from any amounts in his hands due to the JD. l he payment or deduction of such datnages shall not relieve the JD from his obligations tcr comp iete the work or from any other ol llis obligirtions and liabilities under the Joint devel rpment Project Contract. Being Joint I)eve oprnent, delays beyond control in Joint Deve opmetrt need to be resolved mutually. NOTE: I . I' there is delay in supply of equipment but is;ue of PAC is within due date as per Contracl. no LD shall be levied for delayed supplv. Only, the date of issue of "Provisional Acceplance C:rtificate (PAC)" shall be considered for alrplication of LD.

2. Il the Project is delayed due to delay in sr bmission of civil & Structural Drawings by Jl) as per approved Drawing submission schedule, the same shall be reckoned for lely of LD at thc \ errd ol the prolect." I i I I I t l i 3 t2 KL,J Arb. Appl.N o -267 of 2O24

10. It is also relevant to note that the applicant has filed an application under Section - 9 of the Act, 1996 vide COp No.75 of 2023 against the respondent restraining it and,its employees from any further disclosure or misuse of dissemination of proprietary and confidential information of the applicant to any third party in any manner. The said application was dismissed by the Commercial Court vide order dated 14.08.2024hordingthat there was no infringement by the respondent. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, the applicant preferred an appeal vide Commercial Court Appeal No.39 of 2024 before this Court. Vide judgment d,ated 03.07.2025, a Division Bench of this court disposed of the said appeal, set aside the order of the Commercial Court and permitted the respondent to use the confidential drawings including work Roll Drawings only for the puryose of operation and maintenance of the project and for procuring spares and replacement of parts by inviting the tender. The respondent is not entitled to use the same for any other purpose. The Division Bench also restrained the respondent from sharing the confidential drawings of the applicant to any third parties other than the aforesaid purpose. , a :'l I 13 KLJ Arlr-A1rpl.No 261 o12024 1 1. Thu;, there are disputes between the applicant and the respondent witt regard to execution of the said project an<.| also the delay an,1 impo;ition of liquidated damages. There is also a dispute with regard to the use of the said confidential drarvir.rl:,s of the applicant and sl aring of the sarne by the respondent with thir d parties The sam,: are ar bitrable in nature. Therefore, invoking Artir:le 9 of the Contract l.greement read with Clause 40 of the General Conditions of hc Contract, the applicant has issued notice dated

11.12.2023 to tlre respondent. Despite receiving and aclcrcrwledging the said notice, r here was no response from the respondent

12. Witlr regard to the contention of the respondent that the applicanr has to approach ICADR and thereafter it has t,.r hle the present application, it is the specihc contention of the applicant that ICADR is defunct. The applicant has sent a notice to the ICADR. Duc to r.hc alb"esaid reason, there was no responsc fi'om ICADR. Therefore, the rpplicant filed the present application. 'fhur,r, there is no error rn it

13. it is lelevant to note that the institution of ICADII- has now been takt:n over by the India Intemational Arbitration Centre under the 14 KL,J Arb .Appl.No .267 of 2024 a aegis of the Ccntral Govcrnment. Reference may be made to the preamble of the India International Arbitration Centre Act, 2019: of the undertakings Centre for Alternative "An Act to provide for the establishment and incorporation of the I [India International Arbitration Cenfre for the purpose.of creating an independent and autonomous regime for institutiona lized arbitration and for acquisition and transfer of the International Dispute Resolution and to vest such undertakings in the India International Arbitration Centre for the better management of arbitration so as to make it a hub for institutional arbitration and to declare the India Internationat Arbitration Centre to be an institution of national importance and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. WHEREAS dispute resolution process has a huge impact on the Indian economy and global perception on doing business in our country and it has become necessary to inspire confidence and credibility among the litigants of commercial disputes; AND WHEREAS rapidly changing economic activity demands expeditious settlement of disputes and creation and establishment of institutional arbitration; :l !:-- 15 KL.i Arb Appl.No.ll67 of 2024 AND WIIEREAS the International Centre for Alterrrative Dispute Resolution was set up in the )ear 1995, under the aegis of the Clentral (ioverrrnent and registered under the Societies Rcgistr.ation Act, 1860 (21 of 1860), with the objec,ive of promoting altemative dispute resohLtion mechanism and providing facilities for the s€ me; AND M{EREAS the International Centre fbr z\ltcr rativc Dispute Resolution has receivcd land zrnd s.rbstantial funding by way of grants ancl other bcnelits lrom the Central Government for constructing infrastructure and making othr:r I'acili,icsl IND WHEREAS the Intemational Centre fbr Alter rative Dispute Resolution has not been able to actrvcly engage and embrace developments in the a bitration ecosystem and to create a reprrtation par cxcellence keeping pace with the d1'namio nature olarbitration over more than two decades: l.M) WI-IEREAS studies conductcd by thc High Level Committee appointed by the Central Gor.c rnment indicate that the International Centre [or rr ltemative Dispute Resolution has failed to addrt,ss thc growing needs of the institulional arbit ation and also to bear optimum caseload and to tecome better choice to the partics lor arbitr ation; :l i I 16 KL,J Arb.Appl.No.267 of 2024 AND WHERIAS it has become expedient ro take over the undertakings of the International Centre for Altemative Dispute Resolution including its regional offices without interfering with its activities and without adveriely aflecting its character as a Society but to utilise its existing infrastructure and other facilities which have been set up by using the public funds provided by the Government and to incorporate a robust institution for domestic and intemational arbitration to be known as the India International Arbitration Centre; AND WHEREAS it is considered nccessary to declare the India International Arbitration Centre as an institution of national importance for its overall development as a major arbitration hub by promoting quick and efficient dispute resolution mechanism."

14. From the above preamble, it is clear that the arbitral institution designated by the parties i.e., ICADR has now become defunct and no longer exists. This raises a question whether the arbitration clause in the present case i.e., Clause 40 becomes unworkable and whether no arbitrator can be appointed by this Court under Section I 1 . According to this Court, when the intention to arbitrate is clear from the terms of the agreement, the courts shall give t7 KL.J Arb.App l.No.2{i7 of 2024 effect to such an intention. In case, an arbitration clausc be:otnes unworkable either ')y reason of drafting errors or due to tl-re dear-h oi'a named arbitrator. or b1,reason of the designated arbitral institution not existing, ,n., 1,..,1"6tion to arbitrate shall be given effect to by exercising powers under Section 11 ofthe Act, 1996.

15. In this 'egard, the following paragraphs of the Sr'rpreme Court's decision in Enercon (lndia) Ltd. v. Enercon (]mbhr, rnay be referred to: "88. In ou r opinion. the courts have to adopt a Dragmati,: a pp roach a nd not a pedantic or technical annroach whilq interpretin u or construinganar bitration agreement ol arbrrtration clause. There[ore, when faced with r.t eerninslv ttnworkable arbitration clause it would bc tht: s dut'y of th€ court to make the same workable within thr: ppnd;si!!l limits of the law, without stretchins it bevont[ thc bounda ries of recosnition. In other words. a comlnol ! sense aDDroach has to be adoptedtoeive effect to th,e intention of tltc oarties to arbitra te, In suchacase. the court ouqht to adopt the attitud e of a reasonable busines usiness common sense as well as bcin E erson ha vin equlr) ncd vrith the knowled e that maY be peculiar to th business venture. The arbitration clause cannot be nurely Iesalistic mindset. as if one i construed with a p b S s ' I Q014) 5 li(rc l -1 : ,1, I t' 18 KL,J Arb. Appl.N o.267 of 2024 ) construi nga Drovtslon ln a statute. wemayi ust add here the words of Lord Di lock in Antaios Compa niu Naviera S.A. v. Salen Rede.rierna A.B, [1985 AC r91 ': (1984)3 wLR 592 1984) 3 Atr ER 229 fiL)t. which are as :( follows: (ACp. 201 E) "... if detailed semantic and syntactical analysis of words in a commercial contract is going to lead to a conclusion that flouts business commonsense, it must be made to yield to business commonsense.,, We entirely agree with the aforesaid observation.

89. This view of orrrs is also supporte<I by the following judgments which were relied upon by Dr Singhvi:

89.l.ln Visa International Ltd. lVisa International Ltd.v.Continental Resources (USA) Ltd.,(2009)2 SCC 55 : (2009) I SCC (Civ) 3791 , it was inter alia hetd that: (SCC pp. 64-65, paras 25-26) "25. ... No party can be allowed to take advantage of inartistic drafting of arbitration clause in any agreement as long as clear intention of parties to go for arbitration in case of any future disputes is evident from the agreement and material on record including surrounding circumstances.

26. What is required to be gathered is the intention of the parties from the surrounding circumstances including the conduct of the parties and the evidence such as exchange of correspondence between the parties.,,

89.2. Similar position of law was reiterated in Nandon Biomatrix Ltd. fNandan Biomatrix Ltd. v. Dl Oils Ltd., (2009) 4 SCC 495 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 2271 , wherein this f I I9 KL.I Arb.Appl.No..267 of 2024 Court ob;crved inter alia as under: (SCC pp. 501-02, paras 28- 10) This "28. in Rukmanibai C:utttas'. (;ollector [(1980) 4 SCC 556] has held (at SC(lp 560, pariL 6) that what is required to be ascartained while Court c Jnstlu ir gl. a clause is ",vhether the parties have agreed that if disputes arise betrvcen them in respect of the subject-matter of contr:act such dis rutc shatl be referred to arbitration, then sucL an arrangefi ont rvould spell out an arbitration agreemeut' )q ln M. Dayanand Reddyv. A P- Industriol ln/t'ash u:turc Corpn. Ltd. [(1993) 3 SCC 137] this Court has held that (SCC p. 142, Para 8) 'E. ctn arbitration clatue is not required ttt be stote'l in L'ry, part tttlar form.If the intention of the parties to rel-el the ctispute o arbitration can be clearly ascertained ll'olr the t:nns of tllc agreement, it is immaterial whether or nol the expression arbitration or "arbitrator" or "arbitrators" has t,een used in the agreement.'

30. fhe Court is req uired, therefore, to der:ide rvhcther the existence of an asreement to refer the llisnute to arhitration can be clearlv ascertained in. the lacts and circumstances of the case. This in turn nav rlepend upon the intention of the parties to be gathqrred liorn th,c correspondence exchanged between the pa r.tjg!: lhc as reement in question and the surroun( Urc litelrmstances. What is [email protected]!9n o0 the narties as to whether thev have agreed for ,' :I 20 KL,J Arb.Appl.No.267 of 2024 i)- resolu tion of the disnutes th rou h arbitration. What is required to be decided in an applicati on under Section 1l of the 1996 Act is: whether there is an arbitration asreem ent as defined in the said Act." (emphasis in original)

16. Reference may also be made to ACC Ltd. v. Global Cements Ltd.2. In the said case, arbitrators were named to decide the disputes under the agreement. Disputes arose after the death of the named arbitrators. The question before the Court was whether a new arbitrator could be appointed. The court answered in the affirmative and appointed an arbitrator. It was held that unless a contrary intention appears, restraining appointment of a new arbitrator in the place of the deceased named arbitrator, a new arbitrator can be appointed. The relevant paragraphs are extracted below: "28. The incident of the death of the named arbitrators has no nexus or linkage with the expression ,,at any time,, used in Clause 2 1 of the agreement. The time factor mentioned therein is the time within which the question .or dispute or difference between the parties is resolved as per the agreement. The arbitration clause would have life so long as any question or dispute or difference between the parties exists unless the language of the clause clearly expresses an intention to the contrary. '. lzot zl t scctt t l 21 KL.J Arb.r\ppl.No.26 7 of 2024

29. The question may also arise in a given case that :he narne(l arb tr-ators may refuse to arbitrate disputes; in such a sitrration also. it is possible for the parties to appoint a substitute i rbitrator unless the clause provides fo the contrary. Ob.jection ,:an be raiserl by the parties only if there is a cl:ar prohihition or dobarment in resolving the question or dispr"rte or <lifferen,;e between the parties in case of death of the nirn.red arbitrator or their non-availability, by a substitute arbitrakrr

30. We are of the view that Clause 21 does not prohibit. or deb,ar the 1a(ies in appointing a substitute arbitrator iu plrrce of the rarn:d arbitrators and, in the absence ofany prohilritron or rlebarmr nt. parties can persuade the court for appointmr:nt of iLn arbitrator under Clause 2l of the agreement.

31. 'lhe High Court in our view was justified in ent:rtaininll such an application and appointing a ftrrrLter Jud_qe of tl is Court as a sole arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conci,iation Act, 1996 to adjudicate the dispute and difl-erence I )etween the parties. " I I t I

17. The decision of ACC (supra) can be extended to the facts of the present case. Merely because the designated arbitral inr,titution no longer exists, the intention to arbitrate cannot be left unerLforced. Therefore, this (lc urr deems it appropriate to exercise its pou'els under Section 11 ofthe.\ct, 1996.

18. It is cl:ar from the contentions of the parties that rlisputes have arisen betueen the applicant and the respondent unrler the l :.1 :1 i : . I I 22 KL,J Arb.Appl.No.267 of 2024 Contract Agreement dated 28.04.2017. The same are arbitrable in nature and have to be adj udicated by an Arbitrator. CONCLUSION:

19. Therefore, the present arbitration application is allowed

20. The Applicant seeks the appointment of a tribunal consisting of three arbitrators. However, the arbitration clause does not contemplate a tribunal with three arbitrators. Therefore, this Court appoints Sri Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Former Judge, Supreme Couft of India, 304, Sector-l5-A, Noida 201 301, Uttar pradesh State (Mobile # 9810559984), as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the applicant and the. respondent. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the Arbitration Application shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR ,/: 1,)t rroryo SEC FFICER To,

1. Sri Justice L, Nageswara Rao, Former Judge, Supreme Court of lndia, 304, Sector-l5-A, Noida 201 301, Uttar pradesh State (Mobite # 9S105599S4) (By Speed Post)(Along with a Copy of affidavit and material papers)

2. One CC to Mr. S. Ram Babu, Advocate [OpUC] 3. One CC to Ms. V. Uma Devi, Advocate tOpUCl 4. Two CD Copies { HIGH COURT DATED:021A'512025 /a _',,,-.\. :: :il-\ -'' .., '(,. 1F'\\ M :',) ..,i 1../ './ ORDER ARBAPPL.tlo.267 of 2024 \: q l t ALLOWINC; THE ARBITRATION APPLICATT(f,N o h // /