APHC010464242025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI ARBITRATION APPLICATION No.28 of 2025 Bench Sr.No:- 37 [3441] M/s. Standard Infratech India Private Limited and M/s. SPL Infrastructure Private Limited (JV), Hyderabad, represented by its authorized signatory M. Sesha Reddy. ...Applicant Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...Respondents ********** Advocate for applicant : Sri P. Nageswara Rao Advocate for respondents : Sri A. S. C. Bose, learned Standing Counsel for Municipal Corporations. CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR DATE : 30th January 2026 P C : This is an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 2. According to the Arbitration Agreement, in the event of a dispute between the parties in connection or arising out of the particular conditions of contract, the disputes are envisaged to be resolved through the mechanism of arbitration while the Arbitral Tribunal consisting of three Arbitrators one each is to be appointed by the employer and the contractor and the Presiding Arbitrator to be appointed by the two Arbitrators, who are appointed by the 2 parties. The relevant condition in the Arbitration Agreement further envisaged that if anyone of the parties fails to appoint its Arbitrator pursuant to sub-clause (a) of GCC 24.4 of the Arbitration Agreement, which is a part of the particular conditions of contract, then, the Indian Council of Arbitration (I.C.A.) was required to appoint the Arbitrator. 3. Sub-clause (a) of GCC 22.4 of the Arbitration Agreement is reproduced herein under:- “In case of Dispute or difference arising between the Employer and a Contractor relating to any matter arising out of or connected with this agreement, such disputes or difference shall be settled in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The arbitral tribunal shall consist of 3 Arbitrators one each to be appointed by the Employer and the Contractor. The third Arbitrator shall be chosen by the two Arbitrators so appointed by the Parties and shall act as Presiding Arbitrator. In case of failure of the two Arbitrators appointed by the parties to reach upon a consensus within a period of 30 days from the appointment of the Arbitrator appointed subsequently, the Presiding Arbitrator shall be appointed by the Indian Council of Arbitration.” It appears that the applicant herein did approach the I.C.A., which required the parties to deposit an amount of Rs.55,16,268/- each. It appears that while the applicant did deposit the said amount, there was refusal on the part of the respondents/non-applicants to deposit the same. It appears further that the I.C.A., by invoking the provisions of Rule 28 of the I.C.A. Rules, required the applicant to deposit the amount on behalf of the non-applicants as well, which the applicant refused to do. Instead of complying with the condition of 3 payment, which the I.C.A. was otherwise within its province to order, the present application has been preferred seeking appointment of an Arbitrator on behalf of the respondents/non-applicants. 4. In the opinion of this Court, the present application is not maintainable inasmuch as as per the agreed terms, it is only the I.C.A. which can exercise its authority to appoint the Arbitrator on behalf of the respondents/non-applicants. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant, at this stage, would submit that they would approach the I.C.A. to take the matter further. 6. In that view of the statement, the present application is disposed of with liberty to the applicant to work out their remedies in accordance with law. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ AMD 4 49 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE ARBITRATION APPLICATION No.28 of 2025 Dt : 30.01.2026 AMD