Gujarat High Court
M/S Dev Construction vs Union Of India on 26 August, 2022
Author: Aravind Kumar
Bench: Aravind Kumar
C/IAAP/117/2019 ORDER DATED: 26/08/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/PETN. UNDER ARBITRATION ACT NO. 117 of 2019
================================================================
M/S DEV CONSTRUCTION
Versus
UNION OF INDIA
================================================================
Appearance:
MR PRATEEK S BHATIA(8629) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS ARCHANA U AMIN(2462) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE
ARAVIND KUMAR
Date : 26/08/2022
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard Mr.Prateek Bhatia, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Ms.Archana Amin, learned counsel appearing for respondent. Perused the records.
2. Petitioner is seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator contending, inter alia, that it is a proprietary concern carrying on the business and pursuant to the tender called for by the respondent inviting bids from the bidders for laying and linking of broad gauge main railway line, loops including pointes and crossings, spreading of ballast, tamping of track, distressing of LWR, dismantling of existing broad gauge track, transportation of P.way material and other miscellaneous work between Sadla and Jatpipli (Stations) in connection with Viramgam-
Page 1 of 17 Downloaded on : Sun Dec 25 00:27:52 IST 2022C/IAAP/117/2019 ORDER DATED: 26/08/2022 Samakhiyali Doubling project, petitioner submitted its bid and was declared as successful bidder. As such, contract agreement dated 7th January 2017 came to be entered into between parties. It is stated that the estimated cost of the work was Rs.2,21,95,888=00 and work entrusted to petitioner was required to be completed within a period of ten months from the date of Letter of Allotment (LOA) with effect from 6th August 2016. Pursuant to which, petitioner claims to have deposited the security and earnest money and also deputed its men and machinery at the site for execution of the work.
3. It is contended by the petitioner that petitioner was not able to complete the work due to total mismanagement by the railway administration, namely, site was not made available to the petitioner though petitioner and its men & material had been stationed at the site anticipating workable site being handed over to the petitioner for execution of the tender work. However, despite several requests the site for execution of the work was not given to the petitioner. Hence, petitioner contends that default was committed by the respondent-railways and later on unilaterally railway administration terminated the contract as per clause 61 of GCC. Hence, contending that dispute had arisen between the parties, notices came to be issued on 27.07.2018 and 1.10.2018 by petitioner intimating the respondent thereunder to release the Page 2 of 17 Downloaded on : Sun Dec 25 00:27:52 IST 2022 C/IAAP/117/2019 ORDER DATED: 26/08/2022 amount demanded thereunder and also informing the respondent that failure to comply with the demands made in the said notices, petitioner would be constrained to file a petition seeking reference of the disputes for being adjudicated through arbitration. On account of said demand having not been complied and rejecting the demand of the petitioner to appoint an arbitrator by forwarding a reply notice dated 20.09.2018, the present petition has been filed seeking appointment of Arbitrator.
4. On service of notice, respondents have appeared and filed their reply denying the averments made in the petition except to the extent expressly admitted thereunder. It is contended by respondents that petitioner has not completed the work assigned to it under the contract within the time-frame fixed under the contract. It is further contended that demand made by the petitioner is of the value more than 20% of the value of contract and, therefore, clauses 63 and 64 of the general conditions of contract which provide for demand for arbitration cannot be invoked. It is further contended that the special provisions relied upon by the petitioner for reference to arbitrator is applicable for settlement of disputes between one government department and another or between the government department and public sector undertaking and not between a private individual and railways. Hence, on the grounds Page 3 of 17 Downloaded on : Sun Dec 25 00:27:52 IST 2022 C/IAAP/117/2019 ORDER DATED: 26/08/2022 enumerated or urged in the reply affidavit respondents have sought for dismissal of the petition.
5. I have heard the arguments of Shri Prateek Bhatia for petitioner and Ms.Archana Amin for respondent. It is contention of Shri Bhatia, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that as per clause 37 of the GCC, it is agreed that disputes, if any, arising under the agreement dated 07.01.2017 same would be settled under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and as such, there was a demand made by the petitioner for appointment of the arbitrator. Hence, contending both parties were ad idem on the issue of appointment of arbitrator, this Court may appoint a sole independent arbitrator, namely, a retired Judge of this Court, to adjudicate the dispute.
6. Per contra, Ms.Archana Amin, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, by reiterating the contentions raised in the statement of objections, would contend that petitioner has agreed for the procedure for appointment of an arbitrator as prescribed under the GCC contract, namely, clause 37.2, and in the reply notice, it is contended that claim is required to be put up only during the progress of the work and not after completion thereof. Hence, contending that petitioner has not put up his claim during the progress of work nor he has completed the work, she seeks for rejection of the petition. She would Page 4 of 17 Downloaded on : Sun Dec 25 00:27:52 IST 2022 C/IAAP/117/2019 ORDER DATED: 26/08/2022 also elaborate her submissions by contending that petitioner had abandoned the work entrusted to him and the final authority for rendering the decision on the claims and disputes raised by the contractor is with the Chief Administrative Officer (C), Western Railway, Mumbai, who, vide letter dated 21st August 2018, had called for certain information from petitioner in revised proforma for the proposal for appointment of arbitrator pursuant to the notice forwarded by the petitioner through his advocate which was not furnished, and as such, petition is liable to be dismissed. She would also contend that each claim raised by the petitioner under the legal notice dated 22 nd July 2018 was examined by the respondent and petitioner has been informed there was no breach of any condition on the part of the respondent and extension of time for completion of work had been sought for by the petitioner himself and, therefore, demand for appointment of the sole arbitrator is unjustified. On these amongst other grounds urged in the reply affidavit, she seeks for dismissal of the petition.
7. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and on perusal of the records, this Court has noticed that under similar circumstances, identical contentions as raised in the present petition had been raised in Arbitration Petition No.89 of 2019 which came to be disposed of by this Court on 25.02.2022 and the Page 5 of 17 Downloaded on : Sun Dec 25 00:27:52 IST 2022 C/IAAP/117/2019 ORDER DATED: 26/08/2022 arbitration clause invoked therein was and is similar to the one urged in the present petition. In order to ascertain this fact, this Court has juxtaposed the arbitration clause invoked in Arbitration Petition No.89 of 2019 along with the arbitration clause invoked in the present case and they are tabulated herein below for the purposes of immediate reference and convenience.
Arbitration clause in Arbitration Arbitration clause in Arbitration
Petition No.89 of 2019 Petition No.117 of 2019
(present petition)
38.0 THE SETTLEMENT OF 37.0 THE SETTLEMENT OF
DISPUTES DISPUTES
38.1 The disputes will be 37.1 The disputes will be settled settled under the Arbitration under the Arbitration and and Reconciliation Act, 1996. Reconciliation Act, 1996.
38.2 The successful tenderer/s 37.2 The Contractor shall put up shall put up his/their claim as his/their claim as per clause 43 of per clause 43 of the General the General Conditions of Conditions of Contract during Contract during the progress of the progress of work and not work and not after completion of after completion of the work. All the work. All such claims and such claims and disputes shall disputes shall be settled promptly be settled promptly during the during the progress of the works. progress of the works. The final The final authority for giving the authority for giving the decision decision on claims and disputes on claims and disputes put up put up by the tenderer/s, by the tenderer/s, contractor/s contractor/s shall be the Chief shall be the Chief Administrative Officer (C), Administrative Officer (C), Western Railway, Mumbai only. Western Railway, Mumbai only.
38.3 The provision of the 37.3 The provision of the Clauses 63 and 34 of General Clauses 63 and 34 of General Conditions of Contract Conditions of Contract corrected corrected up to Advance up to date will be applicable only Correction slip No.4, circulated for settlement of claims or Page 6 of 17 Downloaded on : Sun Dec 25 00:27:52 IST 2022 C/IAAP/117/2019 ORDER DATED: 26/08/2022 vide CAO(C) CCG's No: disputes between the parties for WNC.623/5 part-9 Dated value less than or equal to 20% 4/5/2005 will be applicable only of the value of the contract, and for settlement of claims or when claims or disputes are of disputes between the parties the value more than 20% of the for value less than or equal to value of the contract, provision of 20% of the value of the Clause 63 and 64 and other contract, and when claims or relevant clauses of General disputes are of the value more Conditions of Contract will not be than 20% of the value of the remedy for settlement of such contract, provision of Clause 63 disputes. and 64 and other relevant clauses of General Conditions of Contract will not be remedy for settlement of such disputes.
38.4 The contractor/s shall not 37.4 The contractor/s shall not be entitled to ask for reference be entitled to ask for reference to to arbitration, before the arbitration, before the completion completion of the work of the work assigned to him/them assigned to him/them under under this contract. The this contract. The contractor/s contractor/s shall seek reference shall seek reference to to arbitration to settle the arbitration to settle the disputes disputes only once within the only once within the ambit of ambit of condition 37.3 above. condition 38.3 above.
38.5 The contractor/s shall not 37.5 The contractor/s shall not be entitled to make any claim be entitled to make any claim whatsoever against the Railway whatsoever against the Railway under or by virtue of or arising under or by virtue of or arising out of this contract, nor shall out of this contract, nor shall the the Railway entertain or Railway entertain or consider any consider any such claim, if such claim, if made by the made by the contractor/s after contractor/s after he/they would he/they would have signed a have signed a 'No Claim 'No Claim Certificate' in favour Certificate' in favour of the of the Railway, in such form as Railway, in such form as shall be shall be required by the required by the Railway/s after Railway/s after the works are the works are finally measured finally measured up. The up. The Contractor/s shall be Contractor/s shall be debarred debarred from disputing the from disputing the correctness correctness of the items covered of the items covered by "No by "No Claim Certificate" or Claim Certificate" or demanding demanding a reference to Page 7 of 17 Downloaded on : Sun Dec 25 00:27:52 IST 2022 C/IAAP/117/2019 ORDER DATED: 26/08/2022 a reference to arbitration, in arbitration, in respect thereof. respect thereof. After clear no After clear no claim as given by claim as given by contractor the contractor the dispute if any will dispute if any will not be not be arbitratable. arbitratable.
38.6 These special conditions 37.6 These special conditions shall prevail over existing shall prevail over existing clauses clauses 63 & 64 of the General 63 & 64 of the General Conditions Conditions of Contract, other of Contract, other than provision than provision relating to relating to 'Expected Matters'. 'Expected Matters'. For For settlement of disputes settlement of disputes between between one Government Deptt. the Government Deptt. and and another or between the another or between the Government Department and Government Department and Public Section undertaking the Public Section undertaking the following special conditions shall following special conditions be applicable :
shall be applicable :
"In the event of any dispute or "In the event of any dispute or difference between the parties difference between the parties hereto, such dispute or condition hereto, such dispute or shall be resolved amicably by condition shall be resolved mutual consultation through the amicably by mutual good officers of empowered consultation through the good agencies of the Government. If officers of empowered agencies such resolution is not possible, of the Government. If such then the unresolved dispute or resolution is not possible, then difference shall be referred to the unresolved dispute or arbitration of an arbitrator to be difference shall be referred to nominated by Secretary, arbitration of an arbitrator to be Department of Legal Affairs (Law nominated by Secretary, Secretary) in terms of office Department of Legal Affairs Memorandum No. 55/3/1/75/CF (Law Secretary) in terms of dt. 19.12.75 issued by the office Memorandum No. Cabinet Secretariat (Department 55/3/1/75/CF dt. 19.12.75 of Cabinet Affairs) as modified issued by the Cabinet from time to time.
Secretariat (Department of Cabinet Affairs) as modified from time to time.
The Arbitration Act, 1996 or the The Arbitration Act, 1996 or the arbitrator clause contained in the arbitrator clause contained in General Conditions of Contract the General Conditions of shall not be applicable to the Page 8 of 17 Downloaded on : Sun Dec 25 00:27:52 IST 2022 C/IAAP/117/2019 ORDER DATED: 26/08/2022 Contract shall not be applicable arbitration under this clause. The to the arbitration under this award of the Arbitrator shall be clause. The award of the binding upon parties in the Arbitrator shall be binding upon dispute, provided however, any parties in the dispute, provided party aggrieved by such award however, any party aggrieved may make further reference for by such award may make setting aside or revision of the further reference for setting award to Law Secretary whose aside or revision of the award to decision shall bind the parties Law Secretary whose decision finally and conclusively."
shall bind the parties finally and conclusively."
8. This Court, after having perused the aforesaid clauses 38.1 to 38.6 in Arbitration Petition No.89 of 2019, had observed as under :
"8. A plain reading of the above clause would indicate that it is agreed between the parties that disputes arising under the contract would be settled under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Sub- section (5) of Section 12 which was inserted by Act 3 of 2016 w.e.f. 23.10.2015, reads thus: -
"(5) Notwithstanding any prior agreement to the contrary, any person whose relationship, with the parties or counsel or the subject-matter of the dispute, falls under any of the categories specified in the Seventh Schedule shall be ineligible to be appointed as an arbitrator:
Provided that parties may, subsequent to disputes having arisen between them, waive the applicability of this sub-section by an express agreement in writing."
9. A plain reading of the above clause would indicate that notwithstanding any prior agreement to Page 9 of 17 Downloaded on : Sun Dec 25 00:27:52 IST 2022 C/IAAP/117/2019 ORDER DATED: 26/08/2022 the contrary, any person whose relationship with the parties or counsel or the subject matter of the disputes, falls under any of the categories specified in Seventh Schedule shall be ineligible to be appointed as an arbitrator or to act as an Arbitrator. However, the proviso thereto would indicate that parties may subsequent to the disputes having arisen between them can waive the applicability of this sub-section by an express agreement reduced into writing. This would clearly indicate that notwithstanding any arbitration agreement between the parties to refer the dispute for being arbitrated by a specified arbitrator namely by the official of either of the parties can be waived only where there is an express agreement between the parties, as otherwise the statutory embargo would surface, or in other words, it would place an embargo for continuation of the arbitration proceedings commenced by such arbitrator who is otherwise not entitled to proceed in view of the statutory bar, inasmuch as sub-section (5) of Section 12 commences with the words or expression of a non- obstante clause viz., "notwithstanding".
10. The Seventh Schedule to the Act would clearly indicate that as to what amounts to relationship between the parties or the counsel. The different classes of persons enumerated in item no. 1 to 14 are to be construed or considered as amounting to relationship with the parties or counsel or with the arbitrator. Clause 1 of the Seventh Schedule would indicate that if the arbitrator is an employee, consultant, adviser or has any either present or past business relationship with the parties, it would act as an embargo. In other words, if there is any privity of contract between the arbitrator and/or either of the parties, it would act as an embargo for such arbitrator to arbitrate the dispute. Such privity of contract can be either in present or past. To put it differently, the embargo placed under sub-section (5) Page 10 of 17 Downloaded on : Sun Dec 25 00:27:52 IST 2022 C/IAAP/117/2019 ORDER DATED: 26/08/2022 of Section 12 would continue to operate where the arbitrator is an employee, consultant, adviser or has any other past or present business relationship with the parties and this relationship would act as an obstacle or hindrance for such person to act as an arbitrator or continue as an Arbitrator.
11. The neutrality of the arbitrator is the hallmark of the arbitration proceedings, or in other words, the hallmark of an arbitration proceedings is that the arbitrator is required to raise above the partisan interest as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Voestalpine Schine GMBH versus Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. reported in (2017) 4 SCC 665. The adjudication by an arbitration should be such that neither of the parties would get even an iota of doubt with regard to impartiality of the arbitrator. To rule out any such remote doubt arising in the minds of the parties, sub-section (5) of section 12 has been inserted by the Parliament forseeing such contingencies and it has been prescribed under the Seventh Schedule that such of those relationship which can be construed as raising a remote doubt with regard to the impartiality of the arbitrator should act as embargo for the Arbitrator to continue if already appointed or act as a bar for being appointed as Arbitrator. If such arbitrator were to fall within the four corners of the definition specified in item no.1 to 14 of the Seventh Schedule necessarily the embargo placed under sub-section (5) of section 12 would surface and in such circumstances, the arbitrator will have to necessarily withdraw so as to give rise for appointment of another arbitrator for adjudicating the disputes. Though Ms.Archana Amin learned counsel appearing for the respondents has made a valiant attempt to rely upon entry 31 of Fifth Schedule to contend that where the arbitrator has not been associated with either of the parties for the past three years in any professional capacity like a former employee, such circumstances would suffice Page 11 of 17 Downloaded on : Sun Dec 25 00:27:52 IST 2022 C/IAAP/117/2019 ORDER DATED: 26/08/2022 for the Railways to appoint from amongst its panel of arbitrators who are the former employees and who were retired three years prior to the contract, is an attractive argument to be looked into for the purposes of outright rejection. As noticed hereinabove the existence either direct or indirect of any past or present relationship which give rise to a justifiable doubt in the minds of parties as to the independence and impartiality of an arbitrator being the hallmark of the decision making process, if surfaces, it would definitely attract sub-section (5) of section 12 and notwithstanding that such employees having retired three years prior to the commencement of the arbitration proceedings, would not be a ground for the respondent herein to take umbrage or shelter to stave off the attack with regard to impartiality. I say so for the reason that subsection (5) of section 12 being an complete answer and proviso to sub-section (5) would further fortify this view, namely the parties will have to waive the applicability of sub-section (5) by an express agreement which would not only fortify, the stand of the party in reposing confidence in such an Arbitrator to proceed with even in such case where the arbitrator has been appointed being an employee and thereby such party would be reposing confidence, trust for the said arbitrator to proceed with, notwithstanding the relationship of such arbitrator with either of the parties. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Jaipur Zila Dugadh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Limited and Others versus Ajay Sales and Suppliers (supra), in similar circumstances has held :
"8. Now the next question which is required to consider is whether the Chairman who is an elected member of the petitioner Sahkari Sangh can be said to be 'ineligible' under Sub-section (5) of Section 12 read with Seventh Schedule to the Act or not. It is the case on behalf of the Page 12 of 17 Downloaded on : Sun Dec 25 00:27:52 IST 2022 C/IAAP/117/2019 ORDER DATED: 26/08/2022 petitioner that in the Seventh Schedule to the Act 'Chairman' is not mentioned and only Manager, Director or part of the Management can be said to be ineligible. The aforesaid has no substance at all. Disqualification/ineligible under Sub-section (5) of Section 12 read with Seventh Schedule to the Act is to be read as a whole and considering the object and purpose for which sub-section (5) of Section 12 read with Seventh Schedule to the Act came to be inserted. Sub-section (5) of Section 12 read with Seventh Schedule has been inserted bearing in mind the 'impartiality and independence' of the arbitrators. It has been inserted with the purpose of 'neutrality of arbitrators'.
Independence and impartiality of the arbitrators are the hallmarks of any arbitration proceedings as observed in the case of Voestalpine Schienen (Supra). Rule against bias is one of the fundamental principles of natural justice which apply to all judicial proceedings and quasi- judicial proceedings and it is for this reason that despite the contractually agreed upon, the persons mentioned in Sub-section (5) of Section 12 read with Seventh Schedule to the Act would render himself ineligible to conduct the arbitration. In paragraphs 20 to 22 in the case of Voes talpine Schienen (Supra) it is observed and held as under :
"20. Independence and impartiality of the arbitrator are the hallmarks of any arbitration proceedings. Rule against bias is one of the fundamental principles of natural justice which applied to all judicial and quasi judicial proceedings. It is for this reason that notwithstanding the fact that relationship between the parties to the arbitration and the arbitrators themselves are contractual in nature and the source of Page 13 of 17 Downloaded on : Sun Dec 25 00:27:52 IST 2022 C/IAAP/117/2019 ORDER DATED: 26/08/2022 an arbitrator's appointment is deduced from the agreement entered into between the parties, notwithstanding the same non- independence and non-impartiality of such arbitrator (though contractually agreed upon) would render him ineligible to conduct the arbitration. The genesis behind this rational is that even when an arbitrator is appointed in terms of contract and by the parties to the contract, he is independent of the parties. Functions and duties require him to rise above the partisan interest of the parties and not to act in, or so as to further, the particular interest of either parties. After all, the arbitrator has adjudicatory role to perform and, therefore, he must be independent of parties as well as impartial. The United Kingdom Supreme Court has beautifully highlighted this aspect in Hashwani v. Jivraj (2011) UKSC 40) in the following words:
(WLR p. 1889, para 45) "45 .. ...the dominant purpose of appointing an arbitrator or arbitrators is the impartial resolution of the dispute between the parties in accordance with the terms of the agreement and, although the contract between the parties and the arbitrators would be a contract for the provision of personal services, they were not personal services under the direction of the parties."
21. Similarly, Cour de Cassation, France, in a judgment delivered in 1972 in Consorts Ury, underlined that:
"an independent mind is Page 14 of 17 Downloaded on : Sun Dec 25 00:27:52 IST 2022 C/IAAP/117/2019 ORDER DATED: 26/08/2022 indispensable in the exercise of
judicial power, whatever the source of that power may be, and it is one of the essential qualities of an arbitrator."
22. Independence and impartiality are two different concepts. An arbitrator may be independent and yet, lack impartiality, or vice versa. Impartiality, as is well accepted, is a more subjective concept as compared to independence. Independence, which is more an objective concept, may, thus, be more straightforwardly ascertained by the parties at the outset of the arbitration proceedings in light of the circumstances disclosed by the arbitrator, while partiality will more likely surface during the arbitration proceedings."
9. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions and considering the object and purpose of insertion of Subsection (5) of Section 12 read with Seventh Schedule to the Act, the Chairman of the petitioner Sangh can certainly be held to be 'ineligible' to continue as an arbitrator. Though in the Seventh Schedule the word 'Chairman' is specifically not mentioned but at the same time it would fall in the category of Clause 1; Clause 2; Clause 5; Clause 12 which read as under :
"1. The arbitrator is an employee, consultant, advisor or has any other past or present business relationship with a party.
2. The arbitrator currently represents or advises one of the parties or an affiliate of one of the parties.Page 15 of 17 Downloaded on : Sun Dec 25 00:27:52 IST 2022
C/IAAP/117/2019 ORDER DATED: 26/08/2022
5. The arbitrator is a manager, director or part of the management, or has a similar controlling influence, in an affiliate of one of the parties if the affiliate is directly involved in the matters in dispute in the arbitration.
12. The arbitrator is a manager, director or part of the management, or has a similar controlling influence in one of the parties."
9.1 In that view of the matter, the Chairman who is elected member/Director of the Sangh, can certainly be said to be 'ineligible' to become an arbitrator as per Sub-section (5) of Section 12 read with Seventh Schedule to the Act."
12. In that view of the matter and also in view of the fact that judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court referred to by Ms.Archana Amin now pending before the Larger Bench, I am of the considered view that statutory bar contained in subsection (5) of Section 12 would be squarely applicable and respondent cannot take a stand that it has a right to appoint an employee either the present or the past to adjudicate the disputes and the Railways should not hesitate in taking a stand to appoint an impartial arbitrator though it cannot be gainsaid by the contractor like the petitioner to contend that panel of arbitrators of the respondent would not be impartial. As such this Court is of the considered view that petition deserves to be allowed."
9. Aforesaid order came to be affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.11282 of 2022 vide order dated 15th July 2022. Having regard to the Page 16 of 17 Downloaded on : Sun Dec 25 00:27:52 IST 2022 C/IAAP/117/2019 ORDER DATED: 26/08/2022 similarity to clause of arbitration in these two petitions and aforesaid order passed in the Arbitration Petition No.89 of 2019 having been affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court is of the considered view that present petition deserves to be allowed, or in other words, petitioner ought to succeed in this petition.
10. Hence, I proceed to pass the following ORDER
(i) Arbitration Application is allowed.
(ii) Justice Shri B.N.Karia, Former Judge, High Court of Gujarat, Residing at D/102, Iscon Platinum, S.P.Ring Road, Bopal Char Rasta, Bopal, Ahmedabad 380058, is appointed to act as sole Arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the parties in accordance with the Arbitration Centre (Domestic and International), High Court of Gujarat Rules, 2021.
(iii) Both parties would be governed by said Rules.
(iv) Registry is directed to communicate this order to the sole arbitrator forthwith by speed post.
Sd/-
(ARAVIND KUMAR, CJ.) /MOINUDDIN Page 17 of 17 Downloaded on : Sun Dec 25 00:27:52 IST 2022