LSP 1 4 coarp 3.26.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Commercial Arbitration Petition No.3 of 2026 M/s. Trigyn Technologies Ltd. Through Srikiran Yalamanc Hali … Petitioner v/s. Chief Executive Officer Nashik Municipal Smart City Development Corporation Ltd. … Respondents Ms. Drishti Shah i/b. Ms. Rekha Rajgopal Advocate for the Appellant Mr.Abhishek T. Ingle i/b.Mr. M.L. Patil Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Vedant Bende i/b. Mr. Mandar Limaye Advocate for respondent No.2. CORAM : S.M. MODAK, J DATE : 24th August 2026. P.C. : 1. It is true after hearing all the sides this Court on 21st August 2026 has kept this matter today for the purpose of filing an affidavit by the Petitioner thereby withdrawing allegations against the erstwhile Arbitrator/Retired Judge of this Court. 2. The Petitioner has filed an affidavit affirmed by their Head of India business Mr. Srikiran Yalamanchali. He has stated that he is withdrawing the allegations and giving no objection in recusal of the LATA SUNIL PANJWANI Digitally signed by LATA SUNIL PANJWANI Date: 2026.08.28 12:56:47 +0530 LSP 2 4 coarp 3.26.doc earlier Arbitrator. The allegations raised by the Petitioner about the manner of conducting arbitration by the earlier Arbitrator have been strongly denied by the learned Arbitrator. But in view of the withdrawal of the allegations, this Court need not to go into those allegations. In view of that the mandate needs to be terminated and new Arbitrators are to be appointed. 3. There is an arbitration clause which suggests of arbitration by 3 Arbitrators. The relevant portion of Clause No.5.34.4 is reproduced below: “If any disputes or differences between the Parties are not resolved under clause 5.34.2 above, the same shall be referred for arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for the time being in force. The arbitral tribunal shall consist of 3 (three) arbitrators- one each nominated by each Party and the third one being nominated by these two arbitrators. The Contractor and NMSCDCL will continue to perform their respective obligations under the Agreement during the arbitration proceedings.” 4. Earlier by consent sole Arbitrator was appointed by this Court but now the parties are willing to have 3 Arbitrators as per the said clauses. The Petitioner is suggesting name of Shri Rajesh G. Ketkar, J (Retired Judge of this Court) and Respondent is suggesting name of Shri R.M.Sawant, J (Retired Judge of this Court). In view of that as LSP 3 4 coarp 3.26.doc per the clause let both the learned Arbitrators to nominate 3rd Arbitrator. In view of that following order is passed: ORDER (i) The mandate appointing Mr. A.M.Dhavale , J is terminated. Both the parties to resolve the issue of payment of his fees. (ii) Let Shri Rajesh G. Ketkar, J and Shri R.M. Sawant, J to appoint the 3rd Arbitrator. 5. It is made clear that venue of arbitration will be at Mumbai. 6. Both the parties are directed to approach learned Arbitrators by having correspondence with them and then to decide future course of action. 7. Arbitration Petition is disposed of. (S.M. MODAK, J.)