1. The applicant has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 11(6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) for appointment of a suitable Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties.

2. At the outset, learned counsel for the parties fairly submitted that the core issue in the present case is whether the ‘Letter of Award/Contract’ Annexure P/1 falls within the ambit of ‘works contract’ as per Section 2(i) of Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (Adhiniyam)?

3. Shri Jubin Prasad, learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on clause (2) ‘Scope of work’ which talks about supply, erection, testing and commissioning of Distribution Sub stations. He urged that this clause read with Section 2.1 makes it clear that the end result of applicant’s activity would creation of a ‘Distribution Sub station’. The Distribution Sub station, by no stretch of imagination, can be treated to be a ‘power station’. By taking this Court to the definition of ‘works contract’, Shri Prasad submits that nature of activity to be carried out