The court found the arbitration clause unenforceable as it contradicted statutory provisions, appointing a new arbitrator while affirming the binding nature of arbitration according to the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

ORDER (Oral)

1. Clause 8 of the contract between the parties, which provides for dispute resolution, reads thus:

"8. Dispute Resolution

2. It is apparent that Clause 8 is in the teeth of Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, read with the Seventh Schedule thereto and the judgment of the Supreme Court in Perkins Eastman Architects DPC v. HSCC (India) Ltd., 2019 SCC Online SC 1517: Bharat Broadband Network Ltd. v. United Telecom Ltd., (2019) 5 SCC 755: and TRF Limited v. Energo Engineering Projects Ltd., (2017) 8 SCC 377.

3. Accordingly, the letter dated 15th February, 2021, by the CMD of respondent-Indian Trade Promotion Organization, appointing the arbitrator is obviously not enforceable.

4. In view thereof, Mr. Rajender Wali, learned counsel for the respondent, fairly agrees to the appointment of an arbitrator by the court, but requests that the arbitrator may be someone other than the arbitrators suggested in the notice invoking arbitration issued by the petitioner.

5. Accordingly, in view thereof, this Court appoints Mr G. Tushar Rao, Advocate (Mobile No: 9810708121) as the arbitrator to arbitrate on the dispute between the parties.

6. The parties may contact the learned Arbitrator within 48 hours of receipt, by email, of a copy of this order.

7. The fees of the learned Arbitrator would be as per the Fourth Schedule to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

8. The learned Arbitrator would submit the requisite disclosure under Section 12(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 within a week of entering on the reference.

9. The petition stands disposed of.