# M.J.S. Construction & Ors v. U.O.I. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 1 ILRA 7
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-01-06
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/m-j-s-construction-ors-v-u-o-i-ors-49674
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Arbitration and Conciliation
Act,1996-Sections 11(4), (6),(8) & (12)-
Appointment of arbitrator-Clause 25(ii) of
General Conditions of Contract providing
for appointment of Arbitrator found to be
clearly in teeth of section 12(5) of Act-As
alleged authorities falling under category-1
of seventh Schedule of Act and thereby
being
ineligible
to
be
appointed
as
Arbitrator were also ineligible to nominate
Arbitrator
for
resolution
of
dispute
between parties- In considered view of
Court sub-clause (ii) of Clause 25 of
General Conditions of Contract to the
extent it provides for appointment of
Arbitrator is liable to be skipped-Arbitrator
for resolution of dispute between parties
needed to be appointed by High Court-A
retired Judge of High Court Mr. Arun
Tandon
was
appointed
as
Arbitrator
subject to his consent-Matter referred to
Arbitrator
for
resolution
of
dispute
between the parties.(Para 25 to 29)

The application is disposed of. (E-6)

## Text

1 All. M.J.S. Construction & Ors. Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
7
(2023) 1 ILRA 7
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.01.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH BINDAL, C.J.

Arbitration & Conciliation Application U/S 11(4)
No. 109 of 2021

M.J.S. Construction & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
U.O.I. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Bharat Kishore Srivastava, Sri Vimal
Dharm Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Prashant Mathur, Sri Prabhakar Tripathi,
A.S.G.I.

A. Civil Law - Arbitration and Conciliation
Act,1996-Sections 11(4), (6),(8) & (12)-
Appointment of arbitrator-Clause 25(ii) of
General Conditions of Contract providing
for appointment of Arbitrator found to be
clearly in teeth of section 12(5) of Act-As
alleged authorities falling under category-1
of seventh Schedule of Act and thereby
being
ineligible
to
be
appointed
as
Arbitrator were also ineligible to nominate
Arbitrator
for
resolution
of
dispute
between parties- In considered view of
Court sub-clause (ii) of Clause 25 of
General Conditions of Contract to the
extent it provides for appointment of
Arbitrator is liable to be skipped-Arbitrator
for resolution of dispute between parties
needed to be appointed by High Court-A
retired Judge of High Court Mr. Arun
Tandon
was
appointed
as
Arbitrator
subject to his consent-Matter referred to
Arbitrator
for
resolution
of
dispute
between the parties.(Para 25 to 29)

The application is disposed of. (E-6)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Bindal, C.J.)

1. The prayer made in the present
application filed under Section 11(6) of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Application
Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the
"Act") is for appointment of an Arbitrator
for resolution of dispute between the
parties.

2. The arguments, raised by learned
counsel for the applicant, are that upon
participating in the tender, the applicantfirm was issued Work Order No. 15 dated
August 18, 2015 for construction of 30
bedded hospital in Cantt. General Hospital,
Kanpur. As per applicant-firm, when after
completion of the work final bill amounting
₹3,17,98,239.70
was
produced
for
payment, an amount of ₹53,60,466.51/-
remained unpaid. The applicant kept on
requesting the respondents to release the
balance payment, however, when for quite
long time, the payment was not made
despite repeated requests made by the
applicant-firm,
the
applicant
invoked
arbitration clause as contained in Clause 25
of General Conditions of Contract for
Central P.W.D. Works, 2014 seeking
appointment of an Arbitrator for resolution
of dispute between the parties, for the
purpose notice dated July 9, 2021 was
issued. However, respondents vide letter
dated October 8, 2021 refused to appoint
Arbitrator stating that there is no need for
appointment of Arbitrator as Clause-16 of
the contract agreement dated December 26,
2014 excludes the dispute from the purview
of arbitration and it shall be decided by the
Board which shall be conclusive and
binding on the contractor.

3. He further submitted that rejection
of request of the applicant for appointment
of Arbitrator placing reliance on Clause 16
of agreement is totally illegal as in terms of
the Clause-16 of the agreement, the
8 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
decision taken by the respondent is final
and thus no remedy is left with the
applicant. Any such condition would be in
violation of Section 28 of the Contract Act,
as the applicant cannot be made remediless
for resolution of his grievance.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel
for the respondent submitted that entire
amount due to the applicant has already
been paid, hence there is no dispute
pending for which Arbitrator need be
appointed.

5. He further submitted that there was
no sanction granted for the additional work
allegedly executed by the applicant, hence,
no payment could be made. Regarding
application of Clause-16 of the agreement
dated December 26, 2014, he submitted
that 25 of General Conditions of Contract
provides that the same shall be applicable
except where otherwise provided in the
contract. In the case in hand, Clause-16 of
the agreement dated December 26, 2014
clearly provides that the decision on the
issue by the Board/CEO will be final and
thus no arbitrator can be appointed.

6. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.

7. Clause 25 of General Conditions of
Contract provides for an arbitration clause.
It reads as under:

Clause 25

Except where otherwise provided
in the contract, all questions and disputes
relating
to
the
meaning
of
the
specifications,
design,
drawings
and
instructions here-in before mentioned and
as to the quality of workmanship or
materials used on the work or as to any
other question, claim, right, matter or thing
whatsoever in any way arising out of or
relating to the contract, designs, drawings,
specifications,
estimates,
instructions,
orders or these conditions or otherwise
concerning the works or the execution or
failure to execute the same whether arising
during the progress of the work or after the
cancellation, termination, completion or
abandonment thereof shall be dealt with as
mentioned hereinafter:

(i) If the contractor considers any
work demanded of him to be outside the
requirements of the contract, or disputes
any drawings, record or decision given in
writing by the Engineer-in-Charge on any
matter in connection with or arising out of
the contract or carrying out of the work, to
be unacceptable, he shall promptly within
15
days
request
the
Superintending
Engineer in writing for written instruction
or decision. Thereupon, the Superintending
Engineer shall give his written instructions
or decision within a period of one month
from the receipt of the contractor's letter.

If the Superintending Engineer
fails to give his instructions or decision in
writing within the aforesaid period or if the
contractor
is
dissatisfied
with
the
instructions
or
decision
of
the
Superintending Engineer, the contractor
may, within 15 days of the receipt of
Superintending Engineer's decision, appeal
to the Chief Engineer who shall afford an
opportunity to the contractor to be heard, if
the latter so desires, and to offer evidence
in support of his appeal. The Chief
Engineer shall give his decision within 30
days of receipt of contractor's appeal.

If the contractor is dissatisfied
with the decision of the Chief Engineer, the
contractor may within 30 days from the
receipt of the Chief Engineer decision,
appeal
before
the
Dispute
Redressal
Committee (DRC) along with a list of
disputes with amounts claimed in respect of
1 All. M.J.S. Construction & Ors. Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
9
each such dispute and giving reference to
the rejection of his disputes by the Chief
Engineer.
The
Dispute
Redressal
Committee (DRC) shall give his decision
within a period of 90 days from the receipt
of Contractor's appeal. The constitution of
Dispute Redressal Committee (DRC) shall
be as indicated in Schedule ''F'.

If
the
Dispute
Redressal
Committee (DRC) fails to give his decision
within the aforesaid period or any party is
dissatisfied with the decision of Dispute
Redressal Committee (DRC), then either
party may within a period of 30 days from
the receipt of the decision of Dispute
Redressal Committee (DRC), give notice to
the Chief Engineer for appointment of
arbitrator on prescribed proforma as per
Appendix XV, failing which the said
decision shall be final binding and
conclusive and not referable to adjudication
by the arbitrator.

(ii) Except where the decision has
become final, binding and conclusive in
terms of Sub Para (i) above, disputes or
difference shall be referred for adjudication
through arbitration by a sole arbitrator
appointed by the Chief Engineer, CPWD,
in charge of the work or if there be no
Chief Engineer, the Additional Director
General of the concerned region of CPWD
or if there be no Additional Director
General, the Director General of Works,
CPWD. If the arbitrator so appointed is
unable or unwilling to act or resigns his
appointment or vacates his office due to
any
reason whatsoever,
another
sole
arbitrator shall be appointed in the manner
aforesaid. Such person shall be entitled to
proceed with the reference from the stage at
which it was left by his predecessor.

It is a term of this contract that
the party invoking arbitration shall give a
list of disputes with amounts claimed in
respect of each such dispute along with the
notice for appointment of arbitrator and
giving reference to the rejection by the
Chief Engineer of the appeal.

It is also a term of this contract that
no person, other than a person appointed by
such Chief Engineer CPWD or Additional
Director
General or Director General,
CPWD, as aforesaid, should act as arbitrator
and if for any reason that is not possible, the
matter shall not be referred to arbitration at
all.

It is also a term of this contract that
if the contractor does not make any demand
for appointment of arbitrator in respect of any
claims in writing as aforesaid within 120 days
of receiving the intimation from the
Engineer-in-charge that the final bill is ready
for payment, the claim of the contractor shall
be deemed to have been waived and
absolutely barred and the Government shall
be discharged and released of all liabilities
under the contract in respect of these claims.

The arbitration shall be conducted
in accordance with the provisions of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of
1996) or any statutory modifications or reenactment thereof and the rules made
thereunder and for the time being in force
shall apply to the arbitration proceeding
under this clause.

It is also a term of this contract that
the arbitrator shall adjudicate on only such
disputes as are referred to him by the
appointing authority and give separate award
against each dispute and claim referred to
him and in all cases where the total amount of
the claims by any party exceeds Rs.
1,00,000/-, the arbitrator shall give reasons
for the award.

It is also a term of the contract that
if any fees are payable to the arbitrator, these
shall be paid equally by both the parties.

It is also a term of the contract
that the arbitrator shall be deemed to have
entered on the reference on the date he
10 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
issues notice to both the parties calling
them to submit their statement of claims
and counter statement of claims. The venue
of the arbitration shall be such place as may
be fixed by the arbitrator in his sole
discretion. The fees, if any, of the arbitrator
shall, if required to be paid before the
award is made and published, be paid half
and half by each of the parties. The cost of
the reference and of the award (including
the fees, if any, of the arbitrator) shall be in
the discretion of the arbitrator who may
direct to any by whom and in what manner,
such costs or any part thereof shall be paid
and fix or settle the amount of costs to be
so paid."

8. The fact that the aforesaid clause is
applicable to the contract in question was
not a matter of dispute as the same was
neither denied by the respondent in reply to
the notice issued by the applicant seeking
appointment of Arbitrator referring to that
clause nor even in the counter affidavit
filed to the application. The only ground
raised for rejection of the prayer of the
applicant for appointment of arbitrator was
Clause
16
of
the
agreement
dated
December 26, 2014 in terms whereof for
specification and the quality of materials,
the decision of the Board/CEO shall be
final. The same reads as under:

"16. If and whenever any dispute
hereinafter arise relating to the meaning of
specification and the quality of materials of
the work or any other matter relating to the
contractor, the decision of the Board/CEO
shall be conclusive, and, binding on the
contractor."

9. In Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.
and others Vs. Motorola India Pvt. Ltd.
(2009) 2 SCC 337, the judgment of the
Kerala
High
Court
appointing
the
Arbitrator was challenged before Hon'ble
the Supreme Court in appeal by BSNL.
While upholding the appointment of the
Arbitrator by the High Court, the appeal
preferred by the BSNL was dismissed.

10. In the aforesaid case, the contract
between the parties was executed in
respect of turn key solution of supply,
installation and commissioning of Indian
Mobile Communications System. Clause
16.2 of the contract provided that in case
the delayed portion of the delivery
materially hampers effective user of the
system, liquidated damages shall be levied
on the total value of concerned package of
the purchase order. It further provided that
the
quantum
of
liquidated
damages
assessed and levied by the purchaser shall
be final and not challengeable by the
supplier. The said clause 16.2 reads as
under:

"16.2. Should the tenderer fail to
deliver the goods and services on turn key
basis within the period prescribed, the
purchaser shall be entitled to recover 0.5%
of the value of the delayed quantity of the
goods & services, for each week of delay
or part thereof, for a period upto 10 weeks
and thereafter at the rate of 0.7% of the
value of the delayed quantity of the goods
and services for each week of delay or part
thereof for another 10 weeks of delay. In
the present case of turn key solution of
supply, installation and commissioning,
where the delayed portion of the delivery
and provisioning of services materially
hampers effective user of the systems,
Liquidated Damages charged shall be
levied as above on the total value of the
concerned package of the purchase order.
Quantum of liquidated damages assessed
and levied by the purchaser shall be final
and not challengeable by the supplier."
1 All. M.J.S. Construction & Ors. Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
11

11. The arbitration clause in the
agreement provided that any question,
dispute or difference arising under the
agreement or in connection therewith
(except as to the matters, the decision to
which is specifically provided under this
agreement), shall be referred to the sole
arbitrator.
The
said
clause
20.1
is
reproduced hereinunder:

"20.1 In the event of any
question, dispute or difference arising
under this agreement or in connection
there-with (except as to the matters, the
decision to which is specifically provided
under this agreement), the same shall be
referred to the sole arbitration of the CGM,
Kerala Telecom Circle, BSNL or in case his
designation is changed or his office is
abolished, then in such cases to the sole
arbitration of the officer for the time being
entrusted (whether in addition to his own
duties or otherwise) with the functions of
the CGM, Kerala Telecom Circle, BSNL or
by whatever designation such an officer
may be called (hereinafter referred to as the
said officer), and if the CGM Kerala
Telecom Circle or the said officer is unable
or unwilling to act as such, then to the sole
arbitration of some other person appointed
by the CGM, Kerala Telecom Circle or the
said officer. The agreement to appoint an
arbitrator will be in accordance with the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

There will be no objection to any
such appointment on the ground that the
arbitrator is a Government Servant or that
he has to deal with the matter to which the
agreement relates or that in the course of
his duties as a government servant he has
expressed his views on all or any of the
matters in dispute. The award of the
arbitrator shall be final and binding on both
the parties to the agreement. In the event of
such an arbitrator to whom the matter is
originally referred, being transferred or
vacating his office or being unable to act
for any reason whatsoever, the CGM,
Kerala Telecom Circle, BSNL or the said
officer shall appoint another person to act
as an arbitrator in accordance with the
terms of the agreement and the person so
appointed shall be entitled to proceed from
the stage at which it was left out by his
predecessors.........."

12. The Supreme Court held that the
clause with respect to quantification of
liquidated damages being final and not
amenable to judicial scrutiny is clearly in
restraint of legal proceedings under Section
28 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872
(hereinafter referred to as the "Contract Act").
Accordingly, the Court held the clause to be
bad in the eyes of law. Relevant para-17 is
extracted below:

"38. The provision under clause
16.2 that quantification of the Liquidated
Damages shall be final and cannot be
challenged by the supplier Motorolla is
clearly in restraint of legal proceedings under
section 28 of the Indian Contracts Act. So the
provision to this effect has to be held bad."

13. In ICOMM Tele Ltd. Vs. Punjab
State Water Supply Sewerage Board and
others (2019) 4 SCC 401, the Punjab State
Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Bhatinda
issued notice inviting tender for extension
and augmentation of water supply, sewerage
scheme etc. for various towns on a turn key
basis. The appellant-company was awarded
tender and a formal contract was executed
between the parties. Clause -25 (viii) of the
contract is set out as follows:

"viii. It shall be an essential term
of this contract that in order to avoid
frivolous
claims
the
party
invoking
12 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
arbitration shall specify the dispute based
on facts and calculations stating the amount
claimed under each claim and shall furnish
a "deposit-at-call" for ten percent of the
amount claimed, on a schedule bank in the
name of the Arbitrator by his official
designation who shall keep the amount in
deposit till the announcement of the award.
In the event of an award in favour of the
claimant, the deposit shall be refunded to
him in proportion to the amount awarded
w.r.t the amount claimed and the balance, if
any, shall be forfeited and paid to the other
party."

14. The Supreme Court, while
striking out the aforesaid condition holding
it to be arbitrary, observed as under:

"24. Further, it is also settled law
that arbitration is an important alternative
dispute resolution process which is to be
encouraged because of high pendency of
cases in courts and cost of litigation. Any
requirement as to deposit would certainly
amount to a clog on this process. Also, it is
easy to visualize that often a deposit of
10% of a huge claim would be even greater
than court fees that may be charged for
filing a suit in a civil court.

X X X X

27. Deterring a party to an
arbitration from invoking this alternative
dispute resolution process by a pre-deposit
of 10% would discourage arbitration,
contrary to the object of de-clogging the
Court system, and would render the arbitral
process ineffective and expensive."

15. In Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.'s
(supra), a clause in the agreement, in terms
whereof liquidated damages levied was to
be final and not challengeable by the
supplier, was held to be in violation of
Section 28 of the Contract Act. It was also
held that it would also defeat the notions
laid down under the principles of natural
justice wherein it has been recognized that
a party cannot be a judge of its own cause
(''nemo judex in causa sua'). Any decision
unilaterally taken by the Board or CEO
would fall in the same category. Instead of
promoting the alternative dispute resolution
mechanism, the respondent-Board herein
became judge of his own cause.

16. In ICOMM Tele Ltd.'s case
(supra), even a clause in the agreement
providing
that
before
invoking
the
arbitration clause, a pre-deposit of ten per
cent is required, was held to be arbitrary.

17. For the reasons mentioned above,
in my opinion, Clause-16 of the agreement
in question providing for decision of the
Board/CEO on certain issues to be final is
clearly violative of Section 28 of Contract
Act. If that clause is taken out of the
agreement executed between the parties,
Clause-25
of
General
Conditions
of
Contract comes into picture.

18. In Clause 25 of General
Conditions
of
Contract,
a
detailed
procedure has been provided for resolution
of dispute. Initially a request is to be made
to the Superintending Engineer. On his
failure to give decision, an appeal is
maintainable
to
the
Chief
Engineer
whereafter the matter can be considered by
Dispute Redressal Committee. Any of the
party dissatisfied with the order of Dispute
Redressal Committee can give notice to the
Chief
Engineer
for
appointment
of
Arbitrator. The matter is required to be
referred to sole Arbitrator to be appointed
by Chief Engineer.

19. However, in the case in hand, the
applicant, in the notice dated July 9, 2021,
1 All. M.J.S. Construction & Ors. Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
13
while invoking the arbitration clause, has
clearly stated therein absence of the
aforesaid authorities and the Dispute
Redressal Committee in the respondentDepartment. This fact having not been
controverted by the respondent, in my view,
the applicant has rightly invoked the
arbitration
clause
directly
seeking
appointment of Arbitrator for resolution of
dispute between the parties.

20. Now I come to the aspect
regarding appointment of Arbitrator by
Chief Engineer, as provided under Clause
25, or
any
other
authority
of
the
respondent. The Supreme Court in Perkins
Eastman Architects DPC and another
Vs. HSCC (India) Limited AIR 2020 SC
59, considering the issue as to whether an
ineligible
persons
can
nominate
an
arbitrator, quoted the following from TRF
Ltd. vs. Energo Engineering Projects Ltd
(2017) 8 SCC 377:

"By
our
analysis,
we
are
obligated to arrive at the conclusion that
once the arbitrator has become ineligible by
operation of law, he cannot nominate
another as an arbitrator. The arbitrator
becomes ineligible as per prescription
contained in Section 12(5) of the Act."

21. Referring to and relying on the
above authority on the issue in TRF Ltd.'
case (supra) The Court in Perkins
Eastman Architects' case (supra) held:

"But, in our view that has to be
the logical deduction from TRF Limited
(2017) 8 SCC 377. Paragraph 50 of the
decision shows that this Court was
concerned with the issue, "whether the
Managing
Director,
after
becoming
ineligible by operation of law, is he still
eligible to nominate an Arbitrator" The
ineligibility referred to therein, was as a
result of operation of law, in that a person
having an interest in the dispute or in the
outcome or decision thereof, must not only
be ineligible to act as an arbitrator but must
also not be eligible to appoint anyone else
as an arbitrator and that such person cannot
and should not have any role in charting
out any course to the dispute resolution by
having the power to appoint an arbitrator.
The next sentences in the paragraph, further
show that cases where both the parties
could nominate respective arbitrators of
their choice were found to be completely a
different situation. The reason is clear that
whatever advantage a party may derive by
nominating an arbitrator of its choice
would get counter balanced by equal power
with the other party. But, in a case where
only one party has a right to appoint a sole
arbitrator, its choice will always have an
element of exclusivity in determining or
charting the course for dispute resolution.
Naturally, the person who has an interest in
the outcome or decision of the dispute must
not have the power to appoint a sole
arbitrator."

 (emphasis supplied)

22. In order to examine the
application of the above exposition of law
to the case in hand, it would be appropriate
to go through the relevant provision of the
Act.

23. Section 12(5) of the Act is quoted
below:

"12.(5) Notwithstanding any prior
agreement to the contrary, any person
whose relationship, with the parties or
counsel or the subject-matter of the dispute,
falls under any of the categories specified
in the Seventh Schedule shall be ineligible
to be appointed as an arbitrator:
14 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Provided that parties may, subsequent
to disputes having arisen between them, waive
the applicability of this sub-section by an express
agreement in writing."

24. The Seventh Schedule of the Act is
quoted below:

"Arbitrator's relationship with the
parties or counsel

1. The arbitrator is an employee,
consultant, advisor or has any other past or
present business relationship with a party.

X X X X

5. The arbitrator is a manager, director
or part of the management, or has a similar
controlling influence, in an affiliate of one of the
parties if the affiliate is directly involved in the
matters in dispute in the arbitration.

X X X X

12. The arbitrator is a manager,
director or part of the management, or has a
similar controlling influence in one of the
parties."

25. In the case in hand, Clause 25(ii) of
the General Conditions of Contract providing
for appointment of an Arbitrator Chief
Engineer, CPWD, in charge of the work or if
there be no Chief Engineer, the Additional
Director General of the concerned region of
CPWD or if there be no Additional Director
General, the Director General of Works is
clearly in the teeth of Section 12(5) of the
Act, as I am clearly of the view that the above
authorities, falling under category-1 of the
Seventh Schedule of the Act and thereby
being ineligible to be appointed as Arbitrator,
are also ineligible to nominate an Arbitrator
for resolution of dispute between the parties.

26. Therefore, in my considered view,
Sub-clause (ii) of Clause 25 of General
Conditions of Contract, to the extent it
provides for appointment of an Arbitrator by
the Chief Engineer, or Additional Director
General or Director General is liable to
skipped. If the aforesaid provision, to the
above extent, is taken out of the general
conditions of contract, in my view, the
Arbitrator for resolution of dispute between
the parties needs to be appointed by this Court.

27. Accordingly, this Court appoints
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Tandon, a retired
Judge of this Court as Arbitrator, subject to His
Lordship's consent in terms of provisions
contained in Section 11(8) read with Section
12(1) of the Act by sending a request letter to
him. His Lordship's address is 3, Patrika Marg,
Civil Lines, Allahabad, mobile number is
9415214462
and
e-mail
is
"tandonarun30@gmail.com".

28. The matter is referred to the
Arbitrator for resolution of the dispute
between the parties. The Arbitrator shall be
paid fees as per the schedule attached to the
Act.

29. The present application is disposed
of.

30. In case, the Arbitrator recuses, the
matter shall be listed before the Court itself for
further orders.
----------
(2023) 1 ILRA 14
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.10.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUNEET KUMAR, J.
THE HON'BLE SYED WAIZ MIAN, J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 3487 of 2019

Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents