APHC010517132025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Bench Sr.No:-12 AT AMARAVATI [3441]

ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO: 32 of 2025 M/s. SCS Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. ...Applicant Vs.

The General Manager, East Coast Railway, and others ...Respondents **********

Advocate for Applicant: Mr. Vijaya Kumar Sata Advocate for Respondents: Mr. Jupudi V. K. Yagnadutt (Central Government Counsel)

CORAM :THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR DATE : 13th February, 2026.

P C :

This is an application filed under Section 11 (5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, “the Act of 1996”), seeking the appointment of an arbitrator for purposes of adjudicating the disputes arising out of and in connection with the Agreement, dated 16.06.2022.

2. Learned counsel for the parties do not deny that disputes have arisen between the parties which are required to be resolved through the mechanism of arbitration, in terms of Clause 11 of the Agreement, which reads as under:

“11. ARBITRATION Any dispute, controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this agreement shall be settled in the first instance amicably between the members. If an amicable settlement cannot be reached as above, it will be settled by arbitration in accordance with the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or any amendments thereof. The Venue of the arbitration shall be (indicate the name of place). Notwithstanding settlement of any dispute among the members of the JV Firm, the JV members shall ensure satisfactory completion of awarded work as per thecontractwiththeEmployer(Railways).”

3. Clause 64.(3)(b)(ii) of the General Conditions of Contract, dated

16.07.2020, is also relevant in the present case, which reads as under:

“64.(3)(b): Appointment of Arbitrator where applicability of Section 12 (5) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act has not beenwaivedoff:

(i)…

(ii) In cases where the total value of all claims in question added together exceed ₹ 50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakh), the Arbitral Tribunal shall consist of a Panel of three(3) retiredRailway Officer, retired not below the rank of Senior Administrative Grade Officer, as the arbitrators. For this purpose, the Railway will send a panel of at least four (4) names of retired Railway Officer(s) empanelled to work as Railway Arbitrator duly indicating their retirement date to the Contractor within 60 days from the day when a written and valid demandfor arbitrationis receivedbytheGeneralManager.

Contractor will be asked to suggest to General Manager at least 2 names out of the panel for appointment as Contractor's nominee within30 daysfrom thedateof dispatch of therequest byRailway. The GeneralManager shall appoint at least one outof them asthe Contractor's nominee and will, also simultaneously appoint the balance number of arbitrators either from the panel or from outside the panel, duly indicating the 'Presiding Arbitrator' from amongst the 3 arbitrators so appointed. General Manager shall complete this exercise of appointing the Arbitral Tribunal within 30 days from the receipt of the names of Contractor's nominees. While nominating the arbitrators, it will be necessary to ensure thatone ofthem hasserved intheAccountsDepartment.”

4. It is admitted that there has been no waiver by the applicant in terms of Section 12(5) of the Act of 1996.

5 Clause 64(3)(b)(ii) supra, which envisages the arbitral tribunal to consist of a panel of three retired railway officers and that the contractor to select at least two names out of the panel of four arbitrators prepared by the Railways, out of whom one shall be appointed as the nominee of the contractor, is a condition which is unsustainable, in view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Central Organisation for Railway Electrification v. ECI SPIC SMO MCML(JV) A Joint Venture Co., 12024SCCOnLineSC3219

6. The Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Central Organisation for Railway Electrification (supra) held as under:

“129. Equal treatment of parties at the stage of appointment