The court affirmed that disputes related to works contracts, including construction elements, can be arbitrated unless expressly statutorily precluded, emphasizing the arbitrability of fraud allegations as well.

Order :

Ramesh Sinha, CJ.

1. Heard Mr. Tushad Cooper, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Shrishti Kumar and Mr. Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh, learned counsel for the Applicant. Also heard Mr. Abhishek Sinha, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Rishabh Garg, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 1, Mr. S.S.Baghel, learned Government Advocate for the Respondent No. 2 as well as Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned Deputy Solicitor General alongwith Mr. Tushar Dhar Diwan and Mr. Rishabh Deo Singh, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 3.

2. By this application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Act of 1996), the Applicant has prayed for the following relief(s):

“a) Appoint an independent and impartial person as the second arbitrator towards constitution of the arbitration tribunal under and in connection with the Master Services Agreement dated 18 July 2018;

b) Pass any such other order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

3. The facts, as projected by the Applicant are that the Applicant is a Company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956. It is one of India’s leading Engineering, Procurement and Construction (EPC) companies with over 45 years of experience in executing large and complex urban and industrial infrastructure projects, and provides turnkey solutions for construction of roads, bridges, rail and metro systems, commercial buildings, airports, power plants, transmission and distribution systems, chemical process plants, water and waste management, and mining systems. The Respondent No. 1, Chhattisgarh Infotech Promotion Society (for short, the CHiPS), is a registered Society promoted by the Government of Chhattisgarh. Respondent No. 1 is the nodal agency for propelling Information Technology (IT) growth and implementation of IT plans in the State and acts as the State Designated Agency (for short, the SDA) for implementation of the Bharat-Net Project. The Respondent No. 2, State of Chhattisgarh is implementing the Bharat- Net Project through Respondent No. 1 and is the beneficiary of the Project including the works performed under the Master Services Agreement (for short, the MSA) and was directly monitoring the execution of the Project. The Respondent No. 3 is Union of India, Department of Telecommunications.

4. Bharat-Net Project is one of the flagship schemes of the Respondent No. 3 launched to provide broadband connectivity to 2.5 lakh Gram Panchayats in the country. Respondent No. 3 supervises the implementation of the Project in Chhattisgarh in co-ordination with Respondent No. 1 and 2. The majority of the funding of the Bharat-Net Project is provided by Respondent No. 3 through Universal Service Obligation Fund (for short, the USOF) with the objective to provide affordable broadband connectivity throughout the country. The MSA was for the benefit of respondents No. 2 and 3 who had actively participated in and monitored the progress of the Project. The Project is entirely funded by Respondent No.3 who also owns all the Project assets.

5. Mr. Tushad Cooper, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Applicant would submit that the Bharat-Net Project is one of the biggest rural telecom projects in the world, implemented in a phased manner to provide broadband connectivity to approximately 2.5 lakh Gram Panchayats in the country. It is a project of