APHC010032112026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI Arbitration Application No: 6 of 2026 Bench Sr.No:-27 [3441] Aurobindo Emergency Medical Services (AEMS) ...Applicant Vs. Dr. N.T.R. Vaidya Seva Trust, Government of Andhra Pradesh ...Respondent ********** Advocate for Applicant: Mr. Vimal Varma Vasi Reddy Advocate for Respondent: None CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR DATE : 10th April, 2026. P C : This is an application filed under Section 11 (5 & 6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, “the Act of 1996”), seeking the appointment of an arbitrator for purposes of adjudicating the disputes arising out of and in connection with the Agreement, dated 01.07.2020. 2. The Agreement was executed, it is stated, for providing the Services of Mobile Medical Units (104 Ambulances) across the State of Andhra Pradesh. The agreement was to remain in force for a fixed period of seven years commencing from 01.07.2020 and ending on 30.06.2027. 3. It is further stated that upon confirmation of the applicant’s selection as the service provider, the applicant furnished Performance Security in the form of Bank Guarantees amounting to approximately Rs.43.85 Crores issued by HCJ ARBAPPL_6_2026 HDFC Bank, which were renewed from time to time and are stated to remain valid until 31.07.2027. 4. The applicant claims that it demonstrated exemplary performance in operating Mobile Medical Unit (MMU) Services, including medical outreach and health camps, in difficult conditions and in the public interest, despite which the respondent committed material breaches of the Agreement, which included delays in payment, arbitrary deductions and penalties imposed, without there being any contractual basis, and expanded the scope of work without corresponding reimbursements. 5. The applicant further claims that in the public interest and at the request of respondent, the applicant handed over the assets and operations to a new service provider, M/s. Bhavya Health Services Private Limited, which was without prejudice to the applicant’s right to claim the outstanding dues. 6. It is also stated that the applicant sought unconditional release of the Bank Guarantees, which was rejected, and that steps were taken to invoke the Bank Guarantees without prior notice 7. The applicant submits that the invocation of the Bank Guarantees was stayed by the Commercial Court at Vijayawada in terms of Section 9 of the Act of 1996, vide order dated 15.10.2025. 8. A Notice dated 30.10.2025, under Section 21 of the Act of 1996, it is stated, was served upon the respondent, nominating Justice D. V. S. S. HCJ ARBAPPL_6_2026 Somayajulu as their Arbitrator, which notice did not elicit any response from the respondent, and hence the present Arbitration Application. 9. It can be seen from the copy of the agreement, which is placed on record that, in terms of Clause 6.23.15, the parties had agreed to resolve any dispute through the mechanism of arbitration, in the following manner: “6.23.15 Arbitration In the case of dispute or difference arising between the Purchaser and Service Provider relating to any matter arising out of or connected with this agreement, such dispute or difference shall be referred to the award of two Arbitrators, one Arbitrator to be nominated by the Purchaser and the other to be nominated by the Service Provider or in the case of the said Arbitrators not agreeing, then at the award of an Umpire to be appointed by the Arbitrators in writing before proceeding with the reference, and in case the Arbitrators cannot agree to the Umpire, he may be nominated by the Arbitration committee of the Indian Council of Arbitration, India. The award of the Arbitrators, and in the event of their not agreeing, of the Umpire appointed by them or by the Arbitration Council of India, India, shall be final and binding on the parties. The Arbitration dispute if any shall be the domestic arbitration governed by the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 as amended by Acts 2015 & 2019, the rules there under and any statutory modification or re-enactments thereof, shall apply to the arbitration proceedings.” 10. Despite the fact that Mr. T. Vishnu Teja, learned counsel for the respondent, had appeared on the earlier date of hearings and had taken time to file an appropriate response, the needful was not done. 11. Be that as it may, since disputes have arisen between the parties, the same are required to be resolved through the mechanism of arbitration, as per the agreed terms. Accordingly, the present Arbitration Application is allowed. Justice Gautam Shirish Patel, former Judge of the High Court of Bombay, is HCJ ARBAPPL_6_2026 appointed as an Arbitrator for and on behalf of the respondent/non-applicant. The learned Arbitrators shall be at liberty to appoint a Presiding Arbitrator in terms of the arbitration agreement. The Arbitral Tribunal thus constituted shall enter upon the reference and adjudicate upon the disputes arising out of and in connection with the Agreement, dated 01.07.2020, and render the Award within the statutory period. The parties shall be free to file detailed claims and counter-claims, before the Tribunal so constituted. The learned Arbitrator shall also be entitled to claim the fee in consultation with the parties. No costs. Consequently, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, in this application, shall stand closed. A copy of this order be communicated to the learned Arbitrator on the address mentioned herein below: Justice Gautam Shirish Patel, 11 Maker Chambers – VI, First Floor, 220 Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400 021 Ph: 98209 88766 / 98210 88711 DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ. SSN