High Court · 2025

Order

He:rrd Mr S. Ram Babu, learned counsel for the applrcant and Ms. V. Uma Der i, learned counsel for the respondent'

2. 1'his tpplication is filed under Section - 11 (6) (':) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'Act, 1996'), to appoint ttrree (0I) Arbitrators to adjudicate the disputes bctween the parlies. CON]ENTIONS OF THE APPLICANT: 3 i) fhe applicant is a Company incorporated u nder the Companies Ar;t. 1956. It is engaged in the design, engince:ring, and supply of stcel plant equipment. It has entered into a Contract with respondent clatel 28.04.2017 for setting up Single Stand Re'"ersing 4- Hl Wide Plate llot Rolling Mill for Rolling of Plates (Phas'>I) at the respondernt pretrtises in Hyderabad. ii) The s rid contract was for design, supply and comnrissioning of various plart equipment and technological structures. It is the specific contention of the applicant that as per the terrns of the contract, tly:-alplicant has agreed to undertake design. enl3ineering, 2 KL,J Arb. Appt.No.266 of 2024 manufacture and supply of plant and equipment, technologicar structures' supply of refractory's, civir and structurar consultancy work, intermediate storage, insurance and handling, erection work, testing, start-up ,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 significant resources for the 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 start from 15th month and shall be completed by 24r, month from the effective date i.e. 2g.04.2017. Erection, start up and putting into commissioning (Provisional Acceptance) shall start fiom the l grh month and shall be completed by 30,h month from 2g.04.2017 and scheduled to be complete dby 2g.10.2019. iu) 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 I I I i 3 KI-.J Arb.Appl.No.2ti6 of 2024 unavaiiabilityof;[ab,forwhichtheapplicantincurrecladditiorralcosts due to prc,ject Prolongation. v) A me':ting was held between the partles' whereirr it was agreed that dclal on the part of the respondent in handing over the site for erection, th: PAC (Provisional Acceptance Certificat e) dates originaltl target::d for 28.04.2019 for Phase-II and 28 10"2019 for Phase-I rteedecl to be arranged. It was also proposed that PAC for both rhe phases were to be conducted by 28'08 2020 based on the anticipatt:davaiabilityofcivillrontforerectionbyJuly'll019and make the projec economically efficient for the respondent b1' utilizing the plates produced lrom Phase I in Phase II instead of proi:uring the same sep alatelY vi') l-hert was an exchange of letters between the applicant and the resprtndcnt. Ihe schedule was extended due to severlLl factors' inctutlinll detayI in civil and structural works, readiness of 'rtilities & cranes, equiprient delivery issues, slab unavailability ' dengue pandemic, irnllict of the COVID-19 pandemic' flooding in the cellars'

and fire damag:. The said reasons were explained to the r:spondent vide letter datc< 27 .02.2020. : i l I t:: 4 KL,J Arb.Appl.No.266 of 2024 vii) On t2.03.2020, the respondent sent a letter to the applicant extending the time for completion of the contract from August, 2020 to 31.03.2021. The respondenr m 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 the .s1gs1i6n start date, due to f.ailure 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 the absence of erection fronts for erection, and the relevant constructions was yet to be completed. viii) The applicant has also sent invoices fiom time to time against the fumace for heating supply of plant, machinery, and equipment of the contract. Vide letter dated 02.06.2021, the respondent extended time for completion of the contract from 31.03.2021 to 31.Og.202L The same was again extended to 30.09.2021. Vide letter dated 04.0g.20 21, the applicant informed the respondent that the consolidated outstanding amount due as on the date is about Rs.61.00 Million which are pending trom 29.07.2021 and, therefore, the applicant requested the respondent to release the 5 KL,I Arb.Appl.No.ll66 of 2024 saidoutstandingpaymentimmediately.Similarletterswerea'ddressed by the apnlicant Jated 11 .09.2021 and28'12'2021' i*) L'icle leLter dated 15.03.2022, the respondent :xtended timelines up to 3 1.12.2021 for completion of coiitract and amended the contract lor erection, start up and putting into comn.rissioning of the contrrlct. tr'i,le the said amendment, the respondent also s:ated that thc liquidated damages deducted against commissionin g to be reviewed at the cr-rd of the project as per the contlact Pro.,'isions in view of def'crrnent in initial contractual site handover by the respondent and ,rther relevant delays on both sides' x) 'fhe respondent released only part paynlent' L'ide lettet dated 08.1 1.20 2, the applicant requested the respondent to release due paytnents and to waive the liquidated damages as the rlelays are beyond .:he control of the applicant in spite of dedicated e lforts etc. Vide lett,er <tate d 08.05.2023, the respondent floated the applicant's proprietaru and confidential drawings, including drawings irL the open market {br procurement of work rolls and other associated p lrls in the tender. The respondent has issued a final acceptance certifii:ate to the applican t v icle I :tter dated 3 1 .05.20 23. On I 1.07 .2023, the r :spondent i 7] 6 KL,J Arb.Appl.No.266 of 2024 sent an e-mail to the applicant informing that it would be imposing liquidated damages @ l\o/, due to the delayed commissioning of the contract xi) Vide lerters dated 12.07.2023 and 14.07.2023, the applicant informed the respondent that it has imposed liquidated damages wrongfully. 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 an injunction and thereafter the same was dismissed. The applicant had filed commerciar court Appeal vide C.C.A. No.39 of 2024 before this Court. A Division Bench of this court disposed of the same vide order dated,03.0r.202r. xii) Vide letter dared 09.10.2023, the applicant sent a letter to the respondent with a request to release contracfual payments towards PAC and Final Acceptance Certificate and outstanding progressive payments. On 09.11.2023, the applicant met the Delay Analysis Committee of the respondent and explained the delay and the reasons for the said delay, etc. The appricant 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 the Intemational Centre I 1 KL.J Arb.Appl.No.266 of 2024 for Altemative l)ispute Resolution (ICADR) and the resJrondent' There was no reslonse from the respondent' Therefore' the a:plicant filed the presenl .Pplication.

4. CONTIINTIO NOFTHERESPONDENT: i) Whereas, the respondent has fi1ed counter contenrling that there was delal' n execution of the project by the applicant and that there was poor p anning and mismanagement by the applicant" There was also ,1elay irr submission of civil and structural drawingr ' There was poor erectio I vu'ork leading to incidents, like fumace collrlpse and fire. Thele was tL delay in supply of critical equipment' Thert:fore' the respondert has irrllosed liquidated damages in ternrs of thc llontract' There is rro elror ln lt. ii) 11 is lufther contended by the respondent that pr cprietary rights over Enliineering drawings were submitted as part of the contract ,leliverlLble and,, hence, the respondent has right to use them for procrrement of spare parts. The present applicaticn is not maintainrrbie sirrce the applicant has to approach ICADR ' and on exhaustirLg alternative remedy, it has to f,rle the present application' 8 KL,J Arb.Appl.No.266 of 2024 The applicant did not do so. With the said contentions, the respondent sought to dismiss the present application. ANALY SIS AND FINDINGS OF THE COURT:

5. In view of the aforesaid rival submissions, there is no dispute with regard to the execution of agreement dated 2g.04.2017 by and between the applicant and the respondent on the specific terms and conditions mentioned therein. The same is for the purpose of setting up Single Srand Reversing 4_HI Wide plate Hot Rolling Mill for Rolling ol 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 planaing, mismanagement, delay in submission of civil and stuuchrral I I I l I 9 KL.. Arb.Appl.No.1l66 of 2024 drawings, poor erection work leading to incidents, like furnace collapse and fire. and delayed supply of critical equipment'

7. l-tre a[oresaid aspects are factual facts; arbitrable disputes which th e Arbi trator has to consider. On the said gror.Lnds' the responder-rt cannrt oppose the present application'

8. Articir: - 9 of the Contract Agreement, which is rt"ferred to Clause - 40 of the General Conditions of the Contract, d':als with 'arbitrati,tn' and the same is extracted as under: "40.0 ARBI'tRATTON

40.1 Ar,v dispute(s) or diffcrence(s) whatsoever ariscs under or out of or in connection with this Contract, or irr respect of any defined legal relationship assor:iated therewith or derived therefrorn, the partirs agree resolve/settle the same by submitting that ctispute to arbitration in accordance uith the International Centre for Alternative I)ispute Rest lution ICADR) Arbitration Rules 1996. The authority to appoint the arbitrator(s) shall be the nternational Centre for Alternative l)ispute Re sc lution (ICADR). The internationalcenter for alternative disputc resolution will provide administrative services iu acco:dance with ICADR Arbitration Rules 1996 Iil I l0 KL,J Arb.Appl.No.266 of 2024 The language of the arbitration proceeding shall be English The place of arbitration proceedings shall be Telangana, India. Note: In respect of pSUs/Govemment brganizations, the 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 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 expressly provided in the Contract, no payment due or payable by the purchaser shall be withheld on account ofsuch arbitration proceedings, unless it is the subject matter or one of the subject matter thereof.

40.2 Work under the Contract shall be continued bv 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 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 matters thereof.,, II KL.J Arb.Appl.No..)66 of 2024 Artick - 8 of the Contract Agreement deals witl.r 'L iquidated 9 Damaget,' and tlre same is extracted as under: "8.1 Us-! Lidated Dama ges due to Delav in Complction of l'a cilities Liquidated damages shall be levied against JD in case of unsatisfactory or delay in supplies and execr(ion of the Joint development Project Contract be1'ord the scheduled date of PAC. LD shall be levia rle @, l% per week or part thereof subiect to a nraxinrum of l\'Y, of Joint development Project Co:rt'act price with Taxes, Duties, levies, cess etc. The 'urchaser may, without prejudice to allv other method of recovery, deduct the amouut of such damagcs from any amounts in his hands due to the JD. fhe payment or deduction of such rlamages sha.ll not relieve the JD from his obligations to cornplete the work or lrom any other of his obli6ations and liabilities under the Joint development Project Contract. Being Joint Devtlopment, delays beyond control ill Joillt Devt:lopment need to be resolved mutually. NOI'E: I . f there is delay in supply of equipment but ir;sue of PAC is within due date as per Contract, ro LD shall be levied for delayed supply. Only, tre date of issue ol "Provisional Acccptance (lerlificate (PAC)" shall be considered for a pplication of LD. t I i j .i -1 I 12 KL,J Arb.Appl.No.266 of 2024

2. If the Project is delayed due to delay in submission of civil & Structural Drawings by JD as per approved Drawing submission schedule, the same shall be reckoned for tery ofLD at the end of the project.,,

10. It is also relevant to note that the applicant has filed an application under Section - 9 of the Act, 1996 vitle 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 appticant to any third party in any manner. The said application was dismissed by the Commercial Court vide order dated 14.08.2024 holding that 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 jldgment dated 03.01.2025, 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 Rolr Drawings only for the purpose of operation and maintenance of the proj ect 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 l3 Kt-,J Arb.Appl.No.266 of 2024 Division Benclt also restrained the respondent lrom sl aring the confidertial drz rvings of the applicant to any third parties 'rther than the alorc said l)t lpose.

11. Thrs, there are disputes between the applicarLt and the respondcnt witlr regard to execution of the said prrlject, an I also the delay ard imltc sition of liquidated damages. There is also a dispute with rel3ard tc the use of the said confidential drawin 3s of the applicant and s taring of the same by the respondent *'ith 1h'rd parties' The sanre are : rbitrable in nature. Therefore, invoking Arl icle - 9 of the Contract .\greement read with Clause - 4() of th': General Conditions of the Contract, the applicant has issued no lice dated

11.12.2(123 to hc respondent. Despite receiving and ackn'lvledging the said notice, there was no response from the respondent. 1:1.. W'ith regard to the contention of the respondettt that the applicant has o approach ICADR and thereafter it has r.o fite the present applicetion, it is the specific contention o1'the ap1:licant that ICADR is dcfrnct. The applicant has sent a notice to the ICADR' Due to the afrresaid reason, there was no response from ICADR. Therefore, the applicant fited the present application. ThrLs, there is no error itt it. /' --- -t -: l ) : I i. I t4 KL,J Arb.Appl.No.266 of 2024

13. It is relevant to note that the institution of ICADR has now been taken over by the India Intemational Arbitration Centre under the aegis of the Central Govemment. Reference, may be made to the preamble of the India International Arbitration Centre Act, 2019: "An Act to provide for the establishment and incorporation of the I [India International Arbitration Ccntre for the purpose of creating an independent and autonomous regime for institutionalized arbitration and for acquisition and transfer of the undertakings of the International Centre for Altcrnative 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 International 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 conhdence and credibility among the litigants of commercial disputes; AND WHEREAS rapidly changing economic activity demands expeditibus settlement of \ l5 KL.J Arb.Appl.No..).66 of 2024 dispr tes and creation and establishment of insl it.r rional arbitration; /,ND WHEREAS the Intemational Centre for Alter native Dispute Resolution was set up in the year 1995, under the aegis of the. Central Govr,rnment and registered under the Societies Re-si;tration Act, 1860 (2I of 1860), with the objective of promoting alternative dispute resolution mechanism and providing facilities for the s rnc; r\ND WHEREAS the International Centre ltrr Alte rative Dispute Resolution has received land and rubstantial funding by way of grants and other bcne fits from the Central Govemmeut fbr conslr-ucting infrastructure and making othet facilities; .\ND WHEREAS the International Contre 1br Altc'native Dispute Resolution has not becn ablc to a:rively engage and embrace developments in thc r rhitration ecosystem and to create a reputation par cxcellence keeping pace with the dynamic nature of arbitration over more than two decades; {ND WHEREAS studies conducted by thc HigJr Level Committee appointed by the Central Gor enrment indicate that the Intemational Centre lbr Altemative Dispute Resolution has failed to address the growing needs of the institutional arbi ration and also to bear optimum caseload ancl i I i i ,, u :l I 1 I I I 16 KL,J Arb.Appl.No.266 of 2024 to become better choice to the parties for arbitration; AND WHEREAS it has become expedient ro take over the undertakings of the International Centre lor Alternative Dispute Resolution including its regional offices without, interfering with its activities and without adversely affecting 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 Govemment and to incorporate a robust institution for domestic and international arbitration to be known as the India International Arbitration Centre; AND WHEREAS it is considered necessary 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 1 1. According to this Court, when the intention to l1 K L.J Arb.Appl.No..)66 of 2024 arbitrate is clear fiom the terms of the agreement, the Courls rihail give effect to such rtlt intention. ln case, an arbitration clause becomes unworkallle eithel by reason of drafting errors or duc to thc rleath of a named albitrato' or by reason of the designated arbitral instit'ution not existing, the intt'ntion to arbitrate shall be given effect to b1't:xercising powers under Sr:ction 11 of the Act, 1996. 1 5. In th is regard, the following paragraphs of the Supreme Courl's rlccisior irr Enercon (India) Ltd. v. Enercon Gmbhr, may be referred.o. "88. In cur opinion. the courts have to adop t a Dragm ;atic approac I and not a pedantic or technical approach w.hile ilrterprctinq or construing an arbitration agreemcnt or arbitration clause. Therefo re. when faced with a qg94!4glv unworkable arbitration clause. it would be. the duty of lhe court to make the same workable within. thc pcrmissible limits of the law, without stretching it bev'ond the bou rrdaries of recosnition. In other words. a comt E-S! lense arrDroach has to be adopted to eive effect to.the intentiorr of the parties to arbitrat e. In such a case, . the cou rt ou sht to adoDt the attitude of a reasonable busittess f,rerson, having business common sense as n'ell as b'ljng gquinpe,l with the knowledse that mav be peculiar to. the '00t4\ 5 scc I I I I I 18 KL,J Arb.Appl.No.266 of 2024 business venture. The arbitration clause cannot be construed with a Durelv leealistic mindset. as if one is construins a Drovision in a statu te. We mav i ust add here the words of Lord Diolock in Anlaios Como anio Naviera S.A. v. Salen Rederierna A.B. 17985 AC 191 | 11984)3 WLR 592 : (r 984) 3 Ail ER 229 (HL)l . which are as follows: (AC D.201E) "... 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 yietd to business commonsense.', We entirely agree with the aforesaid observation.

89. This view of ours is also supported by the lollowing judgments which were relied upon by Dr Singhvi:

89.l.In Visa International Ltd. fVisa International Ltd. v. Continental Resources (USA) Ltd., (2009) 2 SCC 55 : (2009) I SCC (Civ) 3791 ,it was inter atia hcltl rhar: (SCC pp. 64-65, parus 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 ofparties 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.', I9 K I ,..I Arb.A ppl.No.26 ti of 2024

89.2. Sirnitar position of law was reiterated in Nanda't Bio,nctrix L,tcl. lNandan Biomatrix Ltd v ' Dl Oils Lta ' (20()9) 4 S(-'Cr 495 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 2271 , wherein this Court obse-vcd inter alia as under: (SCC pp 501-02' paras 28- 10) This '28. in Rukmanib'ti Gultkt:,'. C lector (1980) 4 SCC 5561 has held (at SCC p' 56(,, para i) that what is required to be ascertained rvhiie Court cor struing a clause is 'wltethcr lhe parties have agreed that if disputes arir;e betu,ectr tlrern in respect of the subject-matter of contract such displte shalt be relerred to arbitration, then such rn arr mgcme lt u'ould spell out an arbitration agreement' ' 2q. n M. Dayanand Reddy v' A P Industr"al InJi'asu'uct ure C)orpn. Ltd. t(1993) 3 SCC 1371 this Courl has held that: {SCC P. 142, Para 8) '8. . . ttn. arbitration clause is not required to be st(tted an.v parti.c tlor form. If the intention of the parties to refer 1 dispute to arbitration can be clearly ascertained from 1 telms of tle agreement, it is irnmaterial whether or not 1 expressiot arbitration or "arbitrator" or "arbitrators" I been used in the agreernent.' .as

30. T he Court is requtred. therefore. to deci to refer the whether the existence of an asreement dispute t'r arbitration can be clearlv ascertained in { he in turn. m.eI facts and circumsta nces of the case. This. depend uDon the intention of the parties to be gathered from the corres nondence exchansed between the parti 9!, -.---:::lt"i 20 KL,J Arb.Appl.No.266 of 2024 IN uestion and the a surroun din clrcums tances. What rs req uired is to sarher the intention of the DArties as to wheth er reed for resol ution of the dlsputes through arbitra tion. What is required to be decided in an aDDl ication under Section 11 of the I 996 Act is: whether there iS an arbitration a reement as defined in the said Act." they have a (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 ofa new arbitrator in the place ofthe deceased named arbitrator, a new arbitrator can be appointed. The relevant paragraphs are extracted below: ..28. fhe incident of the death of the named arbitrators has no nexus or linkage with the expression .,at any time,, used in Clause 2l of the aglssrnent. The time factor mentioned therein is the time within which the question or dispute or difference between the parties is resolved as per the The arbitration clause would have life so long as agreement. '. lzotzl t scctt _l F.-;:*==::: a - 2t KI,.I Ar1r..Appl.No 266 of 2024 ariy queltion or dispute or difference between the prrrties eKists unless the language of the clause clearly express',:s an intcntion to lhe contrary. "29. The question may also arise in a given case that the nanred a bitrators may refuse to arbitrate disputes; in srLch a s tuation also, it is possible fbr the parties to appojnt a s rbstitutr: arbitrator unless the clause provides to the conlrary. C)bjectiorr can be raised by the parties only if there is a clear prohibiti,rn or debarment in resolving the question or dir;pute or clift'ert nce between the parties in case of death of the named arbitrator or their non-availability, by a substitute arbitratrrr.

30. \l'c are of the view that Clause 21 does not prohibit or debar ltrc parties in appointing a substitute arbitrator in llace of thc nanred arbitrators and, in the absence of any prohitrition or debar,nent. parties can persuade the court for appoinl.ment of an arbitrator under Clause 2l of the agreement.

31.'fre High Court in our view was justifieJ in entertarnirtg such an application and appointing a ft,nnct Judge ()1 this Court as a sole arbitrator under the Arbitl.ation and Corciliation Act, 1996 to adjudicate the disptrtt: and c ifferen< e between the parties." 1i'. The decision of ACC (supra) can be extended to the facts of the plesent c ase. Merely because the designated arbitral institution no longor exist;, thc intention to arbitrate cannot be left ulrenforced. Therefore, this lourt deems it appropriate to exercise its por,rers under Section tl ofthe Act, 1996. t I 22 KL,J Arb.Appl.No.266 of 2024 l:., ',4

18. It is clear from the contentions of the parties that disputes have arisen between the applicant and the respondent under the contract Agreement dated 28.04.2017. The same are arbitrable in nature and have to be adjudicated by an Arbitrator. CONCLUSIO N:

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 Court 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 Joryr REGTSTRAR se(.llonoFFrcER

1. Sri Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Former Judge, Supreme Court of lndia, 304, Sector-15-A, Noida 201 301, Uttar. Pradesh State (Mobite # 9810559984) (By Speed Post)(Along with a Copy of affidavit and material papers) To, 2 .1 j// " I One CC to Mr. S- Ram Babu, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Ms- V. Uma Devi, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED:0210!;12025 -::-:: :- -- :. l.a\i: - ORDER ARBAPPL.No.266 of 2024 Sfii t1u[\ o i_-l -"" ,/! - :rl.',- \ :! s ALLOWING THE ARBITRATION APPLICATION 7 // t( /H5 //1 5