- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29314 CMP No. 574 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO. 574 OF 2025 BETWEEN: M/S SCR-JVR(JV) PLOT NO.19, 4TH FLOOR, GREENTECH SQUARE, PHASE-III, KAVURIHALLI, HYDERABAD-500 081 TELANGANA REP BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY SRI N CHANDRAMOULI …PETITIONER (BY SRI. BAPAT SAMPATH V, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHWESTERN RAILWAY, RAIL SADAN, GADAG ROAD, HUBBALLI-580 020. 2. CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER (CONSTN), SOUTHWESTERN RAILWAY, NO.18, MILLERS ROAD, Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29314 CMP No. 574 of 2025 BENGALURU-560 046. 3. CHIEF ENGINEER-NORTH-CONSTN, SOUTHWESTERN RAILWAY, NO.18, MILLERS ROAD, BENGALURU-560 046. 4. DY. CHIEF ENGINEER- SOUTHWESTERN RAILWAY, NO.18, MILLERS ROAD, BENGALURU-560 046. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. CHANDRACHUD A., CGC) THIS CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11(6) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 PRAYING TO APPOINT A SOLE ARBITRATOR TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTE AND OUTSTANDING ISSUES BETWEEN PARTIES AS PER CLAUSE 64 OF GCC IN RESPECT TO AGREEMENT BEARING NO.CAO/CN/BNC/74197/A/115/111/2017 DATED 2.03.2017 DATED 2.03.2017 VIDE ANNEXURE - B IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29314 CMP No. 574 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The petitioner has executed certain work for the respondents and it has caused the notice dated 15.03.2025 raising a claim and invoking the agreement for arbitration. The second respondent has replied to such notice on 17.04.2025 referring to the Apex Court's decision in Central Organization for Railway Electrification Vs. Election Commission of India-SPIC-SMO-MCML1 and calling upon the petitioner to waive objection as permissible under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [‘the Act’]. 2. The petitioner has responded to such Communication on 24.04.2025 stating in categorical terms that it is not agreeable to the procedure for appointment as per the amendment to the Indian Railways Standard General Conditions of Contract, 1 [2025] 4SCC 641 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29314 CMP No. 574 of 2025 April 2022 dated 04.03.2025 or to waive its objections. It is after this Communication that the first respondent has caused the Communication dated 17.07.2025 informing the petitioner that because it has signed a "No Claim" Certificate, there is no arbitral dispute. 3. Mr. Sampath Bapat, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the reason for the dispute is the frequent modifications in the contracted work resulting in an extension of the work period from 18 months to 42 months and the execution of additional works with the respondents’ refusal to acknowledge the liability to pay for the same. The learned counsel also submits that [a] the petitioner's claim is over Rs.14 Crores because of the delay, the cost of the additional work and the escalation in price and [b] the respondents cannot hold the petitioner to a "No Claim" Certificate signed in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Mayavati - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29314 CMP No. 574 of 2025 Trading Private Limited Vs. Pradyuat Deb Burman reported in [2019] 8 SCC 714. 4. Mr. A Chandrachud, the learned counsel for the respondents, is heard, and the learned counsel asserts that a "No Claim" Certificate is signed after a joint inspection, but the learned counsel cannot dispute that, after the decision in Mayavati Trading Private Limited [supra], the circumstances in which a "No claim" Certificate is signed must be examined by the Arbitral Tribunal for complete adjudication. Therefore, this Court must opine that the assertion that the petitioner has signed a “No claim” Certificate cannot be a reason to reject this petition. 5. The next question for consideration is whether this Court must appoint an arbitrator in terms of the amended General Conditions of Contract or as requested by the petitioner. Mr. Sampath Bapat argues for appointment of a Former Judge of the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29314 CMP No. 574 of 2025 Apex Court as the sole arbitrator to enter reference of the dispute at the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre, Bengaluru contending that with the Apex Court's decision in the Central Organization for Railway Electrification [supra], the respondents cannot insist upon the petitioner to select an arbitrator from its panel. 6. Mr. A. Chandrachud, relying upon the letter dated 24.06.2026 and the amended General Conditions of Contract, contends that it would be open to the petitioner to nominate its nominee arbitrator from amongst those who are empanelled with the Indian Council of Arbitration with the respondents' nominee and the petitioner's nominee appointing the third arbitrator. However, Mr. Sampath Bapat submits that this amendment cannot be forced upon the petitioner, and that it is within the petitioner's autonomy either to agree for the same or insist on arbitration by a sole arbitrator - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29314 CMP No. 574 of 2025 because the petitioner has not agreed to go by the amendment. The learned counsel relies upon the following from Central Organization for Railway Electrification [supra]. "In the appointment of a three-member panel, mandating the other party to select its arbitrator from a curated panel of potential arbitrators is against the principle of equal treatment of parties. In this situation, there is no effective counterbalance because parties do not participate equally in the process of appointing arbitrators. The process of appointing arbitrators in CORE (supra) is unequal and prejudiced in favour of the Railways." 7. The afore remains salient, and this is also accepted by the respondents. This is seen when the amendment to the General Conditions of Contract is read in conjunction with the Clarification issued on 24.06.2025, and the Clarification addressed by the Government of India, Ministry of Railways [the Railway Board] is: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29314 CMP No. 574 of 2025 i. Irrespective of the date of the Contract Agreement, the Judgment of the Supreme Court will apply prospectively to arbitrator appointments) ACS-10 to the GCC-2022) to be made after the date of order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court i.e, from 08.11.0224 [sic]. ii. For all contracts having no revised provisions of the ACS-10 to the GCC- 2022 arbitrator appointments after 08.11.2024 may be done as per the Railway Board's letter No.2022/CE- I/CT/GCC-2022/POLICY dated 04.03.2025 with mutual consent. Further, if the contractor opts for arbitration under the revised provisions of the subject ACS-10 to the GCC-2022, the same may be adopted by entering into a supplementary agreement. It is obvious from the Clarification issued that the petitioner cannot be compelled to agree to the amended procedure as it would apply only when there is mutual consent necessarily involving the petitioner's consent. In the circumstances, this Court - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29314 CMP No. 574 of 2025 is of the view that the petition must be allowed appointing a sole arbitrator and given the circumstances of the case, it would be just to appoint a Former Judge of the Apex Court as the sole arbitrator. Hence, the following: ORDER [a] The petition is allowed, and Sri Justice A. S. Bopanna, a Former Judge, Supreme Court of India, is appointed as the sole arbitrator to enter reference of the dispute between the petitioner and respondents and conduct the proceeding at the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre (Domestic and International), Bengaluru according to the Rules governing the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre (Domestic and International), Bengaluru. [b] The Registry is directed to communicate this order [through email] to the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre (Domestic and - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29314 CMP No. 574 of 2025 International), Bengaluru and Sri Justice A. S. Bopanna, a Former Judge, Supreme Court of India, Address: No.191, SFS.208, Opposite Mother Dairy, Yelahanka New Town Bengaluru-560064 [Email ID: asbopanna20@gmail.com] as required under the Appointment of Arbitrators by the Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court Scheme, 1996. [c] The submissions of the learned counsels that the addresses of the parties as mentioned in the cause title are also the current addresses of the parties are taken on record, and the parties are directed to appear before the Director, Arbitration Centre on 13.07.2026 at 11:30 am. SD/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE RB