Arb.O.P(COM.DIV.)No.347 of 2026 __________ Page1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 08-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU Arb.O.P(COM.DIV.)No.347 of 2026 M/s.Landtech AEPC Pvt. Ltd., Rep. By its Authorized Signatory, Mr.S.Mark Paul Raj (aged 50), Office at Bright Complex, 1st Floor, 173, 1st Main Road, Nehru Nagar, OMR, Kotivakkam, Perungudi, Chennai – 600 096. ..Petitioner Vs Tiruchirappalli Smart City Limited (TSCL), Rep. By its Managing Director, Bharathidasan Road, Cantonment, Tiruchirappalli – 620 001. ..Respondent PRAYER : Petition filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to appoint an Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between M/s.Landtech AEPC Pvt. Ltd., and the respondent under the agreement dated 10.11.2020, in accordance with the Arbitration Clause contained therein. For Petitioner : Mr.B.Saravanakumar For Respondent : No appearance O R D E R This Arbitration Original Petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to appoint an Arbitrator to adjudicate the claims and resolve the disputes between the petitioner and the respondent in accordance with the terms of the agreement dated 10.11.2020. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb.O.P(COM.DIV.)No.347 of 2026 __________ Page2 of 4 2. Heard Mr.B.Saravanakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. Even though the Court notice served to the respondent is awaited, the affidavit of service filed along with the acknowledgement card indicates that notice has been duly served. Despite the respondent’s name being printed in the cause list, there is no representation on their behalf. The respondent was called absent and is set ex-parte. 4. A notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been issued by the petitioner on 04.02.2026. In spite of the same, the respondent has not chosen to respond. From a reading of the agreement dated 10.11.2020 entered into between the petitioner and the respondent, it could be seen that the parties have agreed to resolve the disputes by appointing an Arbitrator. 5. In view of the agreement and considering the nature of claim, this Court deems it appropriate to appoint an Arbitrator. Accordingly, Mr.P.Ganesan, District Judge (Retired), (Mobile Nos.96000 45571 & 96000 45570) having office at 778, Judges Colony, Kakithapuram, 4th Street, S.Kolathur, Kovilambakkam, Chennai – 600 117, is appointed as Sole Arbitrator https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb.O.P(COM.DIV.)No.347 of 2026 __________ Page3 of 4 to enter upon the reference and resolve the disputes between the petitioner and the respondent. 6. The learned Sole Arbitrator is entitled to fix his own fees. This Court further requests the learned Sole Arbitrator to endeavour to decide the dispute as expeditiously as possible. 7. Accordingly, this Arbitration Original Petition is ordered. No costs. 08-07-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No vji To 1. The Madras High Court Arbitration Centre, Madras. 2. Mr.P.Ganesan, District Judge (Retired), (Mobile Nos.96000 45571 & 96000 45570) Having office at 778, Judges Colony, Kakithapuram, 4th Street, S.Kolathur, Kovilambakkam, Chennai – 600 117. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb.O.P(COM.DIV.)No.347 of 2026 __________ Page4 of 4 K.KUMARESH BABU, J. vji Arb.O.P(COM.DIV.)No.347 of 2026 08-07-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis