APHC010137312021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO: 15 of 2021 Bench Sr.No:-49 [3574] M/s. Visakha Constructions ...Applicant Vs. Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited and another ...Respondents ********** CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE LISA GILL DATE : 7th August, 2026. Present : Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Shaik Md. Umar Abdullah for CKR Associates Advocate for Respondents : Mr. V. Subrahmanyam LISA GILL, CJ : Prayer in this application, filed under Section 11 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, “Act of 1996”) is for appointment of an arbitrator to decide dispute arising between parties as narrated in application, emanating from Letter of Acceptance dated 04.08.2016, its subsequent termination on 14.12.2016 and demand dated 12.04.2019. 2. It is a matter of record that applicant was awarded a contract of transportation of material from production units to various stockyards within steel plant for period from 18.12.2006 to 17.12.2013. 3. It is stated that, though there was no specific provision for extension of contract period, various extensions were carried out by respondent No.1/R.I.N.L., specifically on three occasions up to 31.10.2017, which, it is further stated, were necessitated due to delay on part of respondent ARBAPPL_15_2021 No.1/R.I.N.L. in finalising fresh tender. Applicant, it is submitted, continued to execute work during each such extension on specific understanding that existing terms and conditions of contract would apply. 4. Fresh tenders were ultimately called for vide notification, dated 23.05.2016, applicant participated therein and emerged as L1. Letter of acceptance was issued by respondent No.1/R.I.N.L. on 04.08.2016, but by incorporating a condition that lower rate between old and new contract will be applicable and same would be recovered from applicant for extended period. It is stated that applicant disputed its liability towards differential amount and thus did not submit Bank Guarantee by stipulated date, which was subsequently extended once. Letter of acceptance, dated 04.08.2016, was terminated by respondent No.1 vide communication dated 14.12.2016. 5. Admittedly, arbitration clause was invoked in respect to dues under old contract, Tribunal was constituted and an Award passed, which is subject matter of challenge by respondent No.1 in CAOP No. 25 of 2019. 6. Present subject matter relates to dispute arising out of subsequent termination of letter of acceptance on 14.12.2016 and demand dated 12.04.2019 by respondent No.1 to deposit risk-and-cost amount of Rs.11,55,983,72.08 ps. When applicant disputed its liability, Managing Director of respondent No.1 was appointed as sole arbitrator. Page 3 of 4 ARBAPPL_15_2021 7 Applicant filed an application under Section 16(2) of Act of 1996, challenging jurisdiction of sole arbitrator. Said application was dismissed by respondent No.2 on 21.04.2021. 8. Present application for appointment of an independent sole arbitrator has thus been filed. 9. Heard learned counsel for parties. 10 Existence of dispute between parties as narrated in foregoing paras is a matter of record. It is further not denied by learned counsel for respondents that a person who has an interest in the outcome or decision of dispute cannot have power to appoint a sole arbitrator, in view of judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Perkins Eastman Architects DPC and another v. HSCC (India) Limited (2020) 20 SCC 760, Constitution Bench judgment in Central Organisation for Railway Electrification v. ECI SPIC SMO MCML (JV) A Joint Venture Company 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3219 and Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd. and others v. Airports Authority of India 2026 SCC OnLine SC 7. 11. It is to be noted that further proceedings before respondent No.2 were stayed by this Court on 18.02.2022. 12. Above said being admitted position, learned counsel for parties during course of arguments informed that a consensus has been reached that Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao, former Judge of High Court of Andhra Pradesh, be appointed as sole arbitrator to decide the dispute between parties. Page 4 of 4 ARBAPPL_15_2021 13. Keeping in view facts and circumstances as stated above, as well as consensus upon arbitrator to be appointed, Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao, former Judge of High Court of Andhra Pradesh, is appointed as sole arbitrator to decide the dispute arising between parties qua claim raised by respondent No.1 vide communication dated 12.04.2019. This appointment is subject to declaration under Section 12 of the Arbitration Act to be made by learned arbitrator with regard to his independence and impartiality to settle disputes between parties. Learned arbitrator to pass an award within time limit specified under Section 29-A of the Arbitration Act and he shall be paid fee in accordance with Fourth Schedule of the Arbitration Act as amended from time to time. Needless to mention, parties would be at liberty to raise all the claims/defences/counter claims/pleas before the Arbitrator. 14. Arbitration Application is thus disposed of accordingly. No costs. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of accordingly. Copy of this order be dispatched to Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao, at the following address: Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao, Plot No.163, Road Number 76, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad – 500 033 Contact No: 99595 09843 LISA GILL, CJ. SSN Whether the order is Speaking/Reasoned : Yes / No Whether the order is Reportable : Yes / No