The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to appoint a sole arbitrator based on the arbitration clause in the contract and the respondent's failure to send a panel of arbitrators within the agreed timeline.

JUDGMENT

1. This order will dispose of the captioned 'Arbitration Original Petition' [hereinafter 'Arb OP' for the sake of convenience and clarity].

2. Mr.Amalaraj S.Penikilapatti, learned counsel on record for sole petitioner and Mr.P.T.Ramkumar, learned standing counsel for Southern Railways on behalf of three respondents are before this Court.

3. This order has to be read in conjunction with and in continuation of earlier proceedings made in the previous listing on 24.03.2022 which reads as follows:

'Captioned 'Arbitration Original Petition' [hereinafter 'Arb OP' for the sake of convenience and clarity] has been presented in this Court on 04.03.2022 under Section 11(6) of 'The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act No.26 of 1996)' [hereinafter 'A and C Act' for the sake of convenience and clarity] with a prayer for appointment of a sole arbitrator.

2. Mr.Amalaraj S.Penikilapatti, learned counsel for sole petitioner who is before this Court submits that the captioned Arb OP is predicated on clause 64 of 'General Conditions of Contract' ['GCC'] which forms part of a 'contract dated 09.01.2012' [hereinafter 'primary contract' for the sake of convenience and clarity] between the petitioner (contractor) and respondents (Southern Railways collectively).

3. Aforementioned clause 64 of GCC as placed before this Court in the case file reads as follows:

4. Learned counsel for contractor submits that primary contract is inter alia for construction of roads under bridge between Melalathur and Valathoor stations by using Box Pushing Technique.

5. Learned counsel submits that arbitrable disputes erupted qua primary contract owing to alleged non-payment by Southern Railways in spite of work under primary contract being completed.

6. It is also submitted that a trigger notice qua aforementioned arbitration clause (which serves as arbitration agreement between the parties being arbitration agreement within the meaning of Section 2(1)(b) read with Section 7 of A and C Act) dated 13.12.2021 has been issued but there has been no response or reply from Southern Railways though the trigger notice has been duly served on Southern Railways on 17.12.2022. This has necessitated the presentation of captioned Arb OP in this Court is learned counsel's say.

7. Prima facie case for issue of notice made out.

8. Mr.P.T.Ramkumar, learned standing counsel for Southern Railways who is present in Court accepts notice on behalf of all the three respondents.

9. Learned counsel for contractor/petitioner to serve one set of papers on learned standing counsel for Southern Railways.

10. Registry to show the name of learned standing counsel for Southern Railways in the next listing.

11. List one week hence. List in the Admission Board i.e., MOTION LIST. List on 31.03.2022.'

4. Aforementioned proceedings shall be read as an integral part and parcel of this order. The short forms, abbreviations and short references used in the aforementioned proceedings shall continue to be used in the instant order also.

5. To be noted, thereafter there was one more listing of captioned Arb OP on 31.03.2022 and the proceedings made on that listing reads as follows:

'Read this in conjunction with and in continuation of earlier proceedings made in the previous listing on 24.03.2022.

2. Mr.Amalaraj S.Penikilapatti, learned counsel for sole petitioner is before this Court and learned counsel is ready.

3. Mr.P.T.Ramkumar, learned standing counsel for Southern Railways on behalf of all the three respondents requests for a short accommodation to get written instructions and revert to this Court. Request acceded to.

4. List in the Admission Board i.e., MOTION LIST on Monday. List on 04.04.2022.'

6. Be that as it may, adverting to the aforementioned earlier proceedings dated 24.03.2022, learned counsel on both sides submit that the facts have been correctly captured. Furthermore, learned counsel on both sides submit that in a similar case, this Court appointed an independent sole Arbitrator in and by order da