# THE GOVERNMENT OF HARYANA PWD HARYANA (B AND R) BRANCH v. M/S. G. F. TOLL ROAD PVT. LTD. & ORS

- **Citation:** [2019] 1 S.C.R. 270
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2019-01-03
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 27 of 2019
- **Bench:** Abhay Manohar Sapre, Indu Malhotra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/the-government-of-haryana-pwd-haryana-b-and-r-branch-v-m-s-g-f-toll-road-pvt-33793
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - ss. 15, 15(2) -
Termination of mandate and substitution of arbitrator - Government
works contract - Dispute between the parties - Nomination of
arbitrator in terms with the dispute resolution clause in the agreement
- Indian Council of Arbitration-ICA raised objection to arbitrator
nominated by the State that being a retired employee of the State,
his integrity and impartiality doubtful - State sought 30 days time
to appoint a substitute arbitrator - Meanwhile, ICA appointed a
nominee arbitrator on behalf of the State, as also Presiding
arbitrator - Challenge to, by the State by filing application u/s. 15
before the District Judge as also objection before the arbitral tribunal
u/s. 16 - District Court held the petition not maintainable since the
tribunal had been constituted - Revision Petition before the High
Court - Dismissal of - On appeal, held: High Court failed to take
note of s. 15(2) which provides that a substitute arbitrator must be
appointed according to the rules that are applicable for the
appointment of the arbitrator being replaced - ICA could not have
usurped the jurisdiction over appointment of the nominee arbitrator
on behalf of the State prior to the expiry of the 30 days' period
requested by the State - Appointment of the nominee arbitrator on
behalf of the State by the ICA unjustified and contrary to the Rules
of the ICA itself - Objection of reasonable apprehension of bias
raised as regards the arbitrator nominated by the State wholly
unjustified and unsubstantiated - Thus, the order passed by the
High Court set aside - On basis of the mutual agreement between
both the parties, Justice S.S. Nijjar (Retd.) appointed as the Sole
Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes arising out of the Agreement.
[2019] 1 S.C.R. 270
270
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
271
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The High Court while considering the
application under Section 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996 failed to take note of the provisions of Section 15(2) of
the Act. Section 15(2) provides that a substitute arbitrator must
be appointed according to the rules that are applicable for the
appointment of the arbitrator being replaced. This would imply
that the appointment of a substitute arbitrator must be according
to the same procedure adopted in the original agreement at the
initial stage. The provisions of Section 15(2) require that when
the mandate of an arbitrator terminates either by his withdrawal
from office, or pursuant to an agreement by the parties, or for
any reason, a substitute arbitrator shall be appointed according
to the rules applicable to the appointment of the arbitrator being
replaced. [Paras 3.1, 3.2][276-F-H; 277-C]
1.2 Clause 39.2.2. of the agreement expressly provided that
each party shall nominate one arbitrator and the third arbitrator
shall be appointed in accordance with the Rules of the ICA. [Para
3.3][277-C-D]
1.3 The appellant-State had requested for 30 days 'time to
appoint another nominee arbitrator, after objections were raised
by the ICA to the first nomination. The ICA declined to grant the
period of 30 days, and instead appointed the arbitrator on behalf
of the Appellant-State. The ICA could have filled up the vacancy
only if the Appellant-State had no intention of filling up the
vacancy. The ICA could not have usurped the jurisdiction over
appointment of the nominee arbitrator on behalf of the State prior
to the expiry of the 30 days' period requested by the Petitioner.
The appointment of the nominee arbitrator on behalf of the
Appellant-State by the ICA was unjustified and contrary to the
Rules of the ICA itself. [Paras 3.4, 3.5][277-E-G]
1.4 The 1996 Act does not disqualify a former employee
from acting as an arbitrator, provided that there are no justifiable
doubts as to his independence and impartiality. The fact that the
arbitrator was in the employment of the State of Haryana over 10
GOVT. OF HARYANA PWD HARYANA (B & R) BRANCH v.
M/S

## Text

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
270
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 1 S.C.R.
THE GOVERNMENT OF HARYANA PWD HARYANA (B AND
R) BRANCH
v.
M/S. G. F. TOLL ROAD PVT. LTD. & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 27 of 2019)
JANUARY 03, 2019
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND INDU MALHOTRA, JJ]
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - ss. 15, 15(2) -
Termination of mandate and substitution of arbitrator - Government
works contract - Dispute between the parties - Nomination of
arbitrator in terms with the dispute resolution clause in the agreement
- Indian Council of Arbitration-ICA raised objection to arbitrator
nominated by the State that being a retired employee of the State,
his integrity and impartiality doubtful - State sought 30 days time
to appoint a substitute arbitrator - Meanwhile, ICA appointed a
nominee arbitrator on behalf of the State, as also Presiding
arbitrator - Challenge to, by the State by filing application u/s. 15
before the District Judge as also objection before the arbitral tribunal
u/s. 16 - District Court held the petition not maintainable since the
tribunal had been constituted - Revision Petition before the High
Court - Dismissal of - On appeal, held: High Court failed to take
note of s. 15(2) which provides that a substitute arbitrator must be
appointed according to the rules that are applicable for the
appointment of the arbitrator being replaced - ICA could not have
usurped the jurisdiction over appointment of the nominee arbitrator
on behalf of the State prior to the expiry of the 30 days' period
requested by the State - Appointment of the nominee arbitrator on
behalf of the State by the ICA unjustified and contrary to the Rules
of the ICA itself - Objection of reasonable apprehension of bias
raised as regards the arbitrator nominated by the State wholly
unjustified and unsubstantiated - Thus, the order passed by the
High Court set aside - On basis of the mutual agreement between
both the parties, Justice S.S. Nijjar (Retd.) appointed as the Sole
Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes arising out of the Agreement.
[2019] 1 S.C.R. 270
270
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
271
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The High Court while considering the
application under Section 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996 failed to take note of the provisions of Section 15(2) of
the Act. Section 15(2) provides that a substitute arbitrator must
be appointed according to the rules that are applicable for the
appointment of the arbitrator being replaced. This would imply
that the appointment of a substitute arbitrator must be according
to the same procedure adopted in the original agreement at the
initial stage. The provisions of Section 15(2) require that when
the mandate of an arbitrator terminates either by his withdrawal
from office, or pursuant to an agreement by the parties, or for
any reason, a substitute arbitrator shall be appointed according
to the rules applicable to the appointment of the arbitrator being
replaced. [Paras 3.1, 3.2][276-F-H; 277-C]
1.2 Clause 39.2.2. of the agreement expressly provided that
each party shall nominate one arbitrator and the third arbitrator
shall be appointed in accordance with the Rules of the ICA. [Para
3.3][277-C-D]
1.3 The appellant-State had requested for 30 days 'time to
appoint another nominee arbitrator, after objections were raised
by the ICA to the first nomination. The ICA declined to grant the
period of 30 days, and instead appointed the arbitrator on behalf
of the Appellant-State. The ICA could have filled up the vacancy
only if the Appellant-State had no intention of filling up the
vacancy. The ICA could not have usurped the jurisdiction over
appointment of the nominee arbitrator on behalf of the State prior
to the expiry of the 30 days' period requested by the Petitioner.
The appointment of the nominee arbitrator on behalf of the
Appellant-State by the ICA was unjustified and contrary to the
Rules of the ICA itself. [Paras 3.4, 3.5][277-E-G]
1.4 The 1996 Act does not disqualify a former employee
from acting as an arbitrator, provided that there are no justifiable
doubts as to his independence and impartiality. The fact that the
arbitrator was in the employment of the State of Haryana over 10
GOVT. OF HARYANA PWD HARYANA (B & R) BRANCH v.
M/S. G. F. TOLL ROAD PVT. LTD.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
272
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 1 S.C.R.
years ago, would make the allegation of bias clearly untenable.
[Para 3.9][278-F-G]
1.5 The instant case is governed by the pre-amended 1996
Act. Even as per the 2015 Amendment Act which has inserted
the Fifth Schedule to the 1996 Act which contains grounds to
determine whether circumstances exist which give rise to
justifiable doubts as to the independence or impartiality of an
arbitrator. Entry 1 of the Fifth Schedule and the Seventh Schedule
are identical. The Entry indicates that a person, who is related to
a party as an employee, consultant, or an advisor, is disqualified
to act as an arbitrator. The words "is an" indicates that the person
so nominated is only disqualified if he/she is a present/current
employee, consultant, or advisor of one of the parties. An
arbitrator who has "any other" past or present " business
relationship " with the party is also disqualified. The word "other"
used in Entry 1, would indicate a relationship other than an
employee, consultant or an advisor. The word "other" cannot be
used to widen the scope of the entry to include past/former
employees. [Para 3.10][278-G-H; 279-B-D]
1.6 The ICA made only a bald assertion that the nominee
arbitrator was a retired employee of the Appellant-State, and as
such would not be independent and impartial. The objection of
reasonable apprehension of bias raised was wholly unjustified and
unsubstantiated, particularly since the nominee arbitrator was a
former employee of the State over 10 years ago. The apprehension
of the respondents was hence unjustified since the test to be
applied for bias is whether the circumstances are such as would
lead to a fair-minded and informed person to conclude that the
arbitrator was infact biased. This would not disqualify him from
acting as an arbitrator. Mere allegations of bias are not a ground
for removal of an arbitrator. Furthermore, the appointment had
been made prior to the 2015 Amendment Act when the Fifth
Schedule was not inserted. Hence, the objection raised by the
ICA was untenable on that ground also. The judgment passed by
the High Court is set aside [Paras 3.11, 3.12][279-E-G]
1.7 During the conclusion of arguments, the Counsel for
both parties mutually agreed to the appointment of Justice S.S.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
273
Nijjar (Retd.) as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes
arising out of the Concession Agreement. The mandate of the
three-member arbitral tribunal constituted under the ICA Rules
is terminated. The Sole Arbitrator shall proceed in continuation
of the previously constituted arbitral tribunal. [Para 4][279-H;
280-A-C]
ACC Ltd. v. Global Cements Ltd. (2012) 7 SCC 71:[2012]
6 SCR 215 - referred to.
Locabail Ltd. v. Bayfield Properties 2000 (1) All ER
65; Re Medicaments and related Classes of Goods
(No.2) 2002 (1) All ER 465 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2012] 6 SCR 215
referred to
Para 3.2
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 27 of
2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated 01.03.2018 of the High Court
of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CR No. 3279 of 2017 (O&M).
Hemant Gupta, AAG, Ms. Sunakshi Gupta, Alok Sharma, Sanjay
Kumar Visen, Advs. for the Appellant.
Gopal Jain, Sr. Adv., Salim Inamdar, Hasan Murtaza, Aditya Panda,
Ravi Sehgal, Prabal Mehrotra, M/s. Khaitan & Co., Advs. for the
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
INDU MALHOTRA, J.
Leave granted.
1. The present Civil Appeal has been filed by the Appellant -
State of Haryana to challenge the Order dated 01.03.2018 passed by
the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in C.R. No. 3279/
2017.
2. The factual matrix leading to the filing of the present Appeal,
briefly stated is, as under:
GOVT. OF HARYANA PWD HARYANA (B & R) BRANCH v.
M/S. G. F. TOLL ROAD PVT. LTD.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
274
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 1 S.C.R.
2.1. On 12.12.2008 the Appellant - State issued a Letter of
Acceptance to Respondent No. 1 - M/s. G. F. Toll Road Pvt. Ltd. for
execution of a works contract for construction, operation and
maintenance of Gurgaon- Faridabad Road and Ballabhgarh-Sohna Road
on BOT (Build, Operate and Transfer) basis.
2.2. A Concession Agreement was entered into between the
parties on 31.01.2009. The period of construction was 24 monthsfrom
31.05.2009. The said agreement contained a dispute resolution clause
which is set out hereinbelow:
"39.2 Arbitration
39.2.1. Any dispute, which is not resol ved amicably as
provided in Clause 39.1 shall be finally decided by reference
to arbitration by a Board of Arbitrators, appointed pursuant
to Clause 39.2.2. sub-clause (b) below. Such arbitration shall
be held in accordance with the Rules of Arbitration of the
Indian Council of Arbitration and shall be subject to the
provisions of the Arbitration Act.
39.2.2. There shall be a Board of three arbitrators of whom
each party shall select one and the third arbitrator shall be
appointed in accordance with the Rul es of Arbitration of the
Indian Council of Arbitration."
 (Emphasis supplied)
2.3. During the execution of the Agreement, disputes arose
between the parties. The Respondent No. 1 - M/s. G. F. Toll Road Pvt.
Ltd. vide Letter dated 30.03.2015 to Respondent No. 2 - Indian Council
of Arbitration ("ICA") invoked the Arbitration Clause, and requested
the ICA to commence arbitration proceedings. On 05.05.2015,
Respondent No. 1 - M/s. G. F. Toll Road Pvt. Ltd. appointed a retired
Engineer-in-Chief - Mr. Surjeet Singh as their nominee Arbitrator.
The Appellant - State herein also nominated a retired Engineerin-Chief, Mr. M.K. Aggarwal as their nominee arbitrator vide Letter
dated 08.06.2015.
2.4. The Respondent No. 2 - ICA vide Letter dated 03.08.2015
raised an objection to the arbitrator nominated by the Appellant - State
on the ground that he was a retired employee of the State, and there
may be justifiable doubts with respect to his integrity and impartiality to
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
275
act as an arbitrator. The Respondent No. 2 - ICA advised the State to
reconsider its nomination.
The Appellant - State refuted the objection raised by Respondent
No. 2 - ICA on the ground that there was no rule which prohibited a
former employee from being an arbitrator, and there could not be any
justifiable doubt with respect to his impartiality since the nominee
arbitrator had retired over 10 years ago.
On 24.09.2015, Respondent No. 1 - M/s. G. F. Toll Road Pvt. Ltd.
raised an objection regarding the independence and impartiality of the
Appellant's nominee arbitrator - Mr. M.K. Aggarwal. Respondent No.
2 - ICA forwarded the said objection to the Appellant - State.
2.5.
The Respondent No. 2 - ICA vide its Letter dated
30.10.2015 reiterated that it has been firmly established that Mr. M.K.
Aggarwal had a direct relationship with the Appellant - State as its
former employee, which may raise justifiable doubts as to his
independence and impartiality in adjudicating the dispute. The Respondent
No. 2 - ICA stated that it was in the process of appointing an arbitrator
in place of Mr. M.K. Aggarwal and its decision shall be communicated
to the Appellant.
2.6.
In response, the Appellant - State vide Letter dated
16.11.2015 requested the Respondent No. 2 - ICA for a period of 30
days to appoint a substitute arbitrator.
In the meanwhile, the Respondent No. 2 - ICA vide its Letter
dated 23.11.2015 informed the Appellant - State that it had already
appointed a nominee arbitrator on behalf of the Appellant, as well as the
Presiding Arbitrator.
2.7.
Aggrieved by the appointment made by Respondent No. 2
- ICA of the nominee arbitrator, the Appellant - State, filed an application
under Section 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("the Act")
before the District Court, Chandigarh on the ground that the constitution
of the arbitral tribunal was illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of
natural justice.
2.8. The Appellant - State also raised an objection before the
Arbitral Tribunal under Section 16 on the issue of jurisdiction.
On 08.12.2016, the arbitral tribunal ordered that it shall not hear
the objection under Section 16 of the Act, and shall await the decision of
the District Court, Chandigarh.
GOVT. OF HARYANA PWD HARYANA (B & R) BRANCH v.
M/S. G. F. TOLL ROAD PVT. LTD. [INDU MALHOTRA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
276
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 1 S.C.R.
2.9. The District Court vide its Order dated 27.01.2017 held that
the Petition was not maintainable, since the Arbitral Tribunal had been
constituted, and an objection under Section 16 should be raised before
the Tribunal to rule on its own jurisdiction.
2.10. Aggrieved by the Order dated 27.01.2017, the Appellant -
State filed a Civil Revision Petition before the Punjab and Haryana High
Court, Chandigarh being C. R. No. 3279 of 2017.
2.11. The learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High
Court vide the impugned Order dated 01.03.2018 dismissed the Civil
Revision Petition on the ground that the Appellant - State could raise the
issue of jurisdiction under Section 16 before the arbitral tribunal.
It was further held that in a situation where an objection is raised
regarding the nomination of an arbitrator by one of the parties, and the
agreement is silent with regards to the mode of appointment of a
substitute arbitrator, the rules applicable would be those of the Institution
under which the arbitration is held. Therefore, in the facts of the present
case, Rules 25 and 27 of the ICA Rules would apply.
2.12. Subsequent to the impugned Judgment being passed, the
Application under Section 16 filed by the Appellant - State was dismissed
by a non-speaking Order of the Arbitral Tribunal dated 12.05.2018.
2.13. Aggrieved by the Order dated 01.03.2018 and 12.05.2018,
the Appellant - State has filed the present Petition.
3. We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties, and
perused the pleadings.
3.1.
The High Court while considering the application under
Section 15 failed to take note of the provisions of Section 15(2) of the
Act.
Section 15(2) provides that a substitute arbitrator must be appointed
according to the rules that are applicable for the appointment of the
arbitrator being replaced. This would imply that the appointment of a
substitute arbitrator must be according to the same procedure adopted
in the original agreement at the initial stage.
Section 15(2) of the Act reads as under :
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
277
"15. Termination of mandate and substitution of arbitrator.-
(1) ...
(2) Where the mandate of an arbitrator terminates, a substitute
arbitrator shall be appointed according to the rules that were
applicable to the appointment of the arbitrator being
replaced."
(Emphasis supplied)
3.2. The provisions of Section 15(2) require that when the mandate
of an arbitrator terminates eitherby his withdrawal from office, or
pursuant to an agreement by the parties, or for any reason, a substitute
arbitrator shall be appointed according to the rules applicable to the
appointment of the arbitrator being replaced.
This Court in ACC Ltd. v. Global Cements Ltd.1 held that the
procedure agreed upon by the parties for the appointment of the original
arbitrator is equally applicable to the appointment of a substitute arbitrator,
even if the agreement does not specifically provide so.
3.3. In the present case, Clause 39.2.2. of the agreement expressly
provided that each party shall nominate one arbitrator, and the third
arbitrator shall be appointed in accordance with the Rules of the ICA.
3.4. The Appellant - State had vide Letter dated 16.11.2015
requested for 30 days' time to appoint another nominee arbitrator, after
objections were raised by the ICA to the first nomination. The ICA
declined to grant the period of 30 days, and instead appointed the arbitrator
on behalf of the Appellant - State. The ICA could have filled up the
vacancy only if the Appellant - State had no intention of filling up the
vacancy. The ICA could not have usurped the jurisdiction over
appointment of the nominee arbitrator on behalf of the State prior to the
expiry of the 30 days' period requested by the Petitioner.
3.5. The appointment of the nominee arbitrator on behalf of the
Appellant - State by the ICA was unjustified and contrary to the Rules
of the ICA itself.
3.6. The objection raised by the ICA with respect to the
appointment of Mr. M.K. Aggarwal as the nominee of the State was
wholly unjustified and contrary to the provisions of the 1996 Act.
1 (2012) 7 SCC 71
GOVT. OF HARYANA PWD HARYANA (B & R) BRANCH v.
M/S. G. F. TOLL ROAD PVT. LTD. [INDU MALHOTRA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
278
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 1 S.C.R.
3.7. The objection raised by Respondent No. 2 - ICA to the
arbitrator nominated by the Appellant - State, was that the nominee
arbitrator was a retired employee of the Appellant - State, and as such
there may be justifiable doubts to his independence and impartiality to
act as an arbitrator.
3.8. The said objection was refuted by the Appellant - State on
the ground that the nominee arbitrator was a Chief Engineer who retired
over 10 years ago from the services of the State. The apprehension of
the Respondents was hence unjustified since the test to be applied for
bias is whether the circumstances are such as would lead to a fairminded and informed person to conclude that the arbitrator was infact
biased.
In Locabail Ltd. v. Bayfield Properties2, the House of Lords
held that :
"The greater the passage of time between the event relied on
as showing a danger of bias and the case in which the
objection is raised, the weaker (other things being equal) the
objection will be."
The Court of Appeal in Re Medicaments and related Classes
of Goods (No.2)3 while propounding the 'real danger' test for bias held
that :
"The question is whether the fairminded and informed
observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that
there was a real possibility that the Tribunal was biased."
3.9. The 1996 Act does not disqualify a former employee from
acting as an arbitrator, provided that there are no justifiable doubts
as to his independence and impartiality.
The fact that the arbitrator was in the employment of the State of
Haryana over 10 years ago, would make the allegation of bias clearly
untenable.
3.10. The present case is governed by the pre-amended 1996
Act. Even as per the 2015 Amendment Act which has inserted the
Fifth Schedule to the 1996 Act which contains grounds to determine
whether circumstances exist which give rise to justifiable doubts as
 2 2000 (1) All ER 65
3 2002 (1) All ER 465
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
279
to the independence or impartiality of an arbitrator. The first entry to the
Fifth Schedule reads as under :
"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."
 (Emphasis supplied)
Entry 1 of the Fifth Schedule and the Seventh Schedule are
identical. The Entry indicates that a person, who is related to a party as
an employee, consultant, or an advisor, is disqualified to act as an
arbitrator. The words "is an" indicates that the person so nominated is
only disqualified if he/she is a present/current employee, consultant, or
advisor of one of the parties.
An arbitrator who has "any other" past or present "business
relationship" with the party is also disqualified. The word "other" used
in Entry 1, would indicate a relationship other than an employee, consultant
or an advisor. The word "other" cannot be used to widen the scope of
the entry to include past/former employees.
3.11. The ICA made only a bald assertion that the nominee
arbitrator - Mr. M. K. Aggarwal would not be independent and impartial.
The objection of reasonable apprehension of bias raised was wholly
unjustified and unsubstantiated, particularly since the nominee arbitrator
was a former employee of the State over 10 years ago. This would not
disqualify him from act as an arbitrator. Mere allegations of bias are not
a ground for removal of an arbitrator.
It is also relevant to state that the appointment had been made
prior to the 2015 Amendment Act when the Fifth Schedule was not
inserted. Hence, the objection raised by the ICA was untenable on that
ground also.
3.12. In this view of the matter, the impugned judgment dated
01.03.2018 passed by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in C.R. No.
3279.2017 is set aside.
4. During the conclusion of arguments, the counsel for both parties
mutually agreed to the arbitration being conducted by a Sole Arbitrator
GOVT. OF HARYANA PWD HARYANA (B & R) BRANCH v.
M/S. G. F. TOLL ROAD PVT. LTD. [INDU MALHOTRA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
280
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 1 S.C.R.
in supersession of the arbitration clause in the agreement which provided
for a three-member arbitration panel.
The Counsel for both parties mutually agreed to the appointment
of Justice S.S. Nijjar (Retd.) as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the
disputes arising out of the Concession Agreement dated 31.01.2009.
Accordingly, the mandate of the three-member arbitral tribunal
constituted under the ICA Rules on 05.12.2015 stands terminated. The
Sole Arbitrator shall proceed in continuation of the previously constituted
arbitral tribunal. The material already on record shall be deemed to have
been received by the Sole Arbitrator.
The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Nidhi Jain
 Appeal disposed of.