Gujarat High Court
National Dairy Development Board vs Harsh Agrawal on 22 September, 2025
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/ARBI.P/100/2025 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/PETN. UNDER ARBITRATION ACT NO. 100 of 2025
==========================================================
NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Versus
HARSH AGRAWAL
==========================================================
Appearance:
UDIT N VYAS(9255) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
PARTY IN PERSON(5000) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE
SUNITA AGARWAL
Date : 22/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Having heard Mr. Udit N. Vyas, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Harsh Agrawal, respondent appearing as party-in-person and perused the record, pertinent is to note that the present petition has been filed by the National Dairy Development Board, an institute of national importance, constituted by an Act of Parliament namely the National Dairy Development Board Act, 1987. It is stated in the petition that the petitioner - Board can sue and be sued in its own name. The petitioner has been appointed as the Nodal Agency for implementation of a scheme namely Rashtriya Gokul Mission launched by Animal Husbandry and Dairying, Government of India for development and conservation of indigenous bovine breeds. Financial assistance in the nature Page 1 of 21 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 01:35:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/ARBI.P/100/2025 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined of subsidy/grant in aid is to be provided to the beneficiaries which are desirous of establishing and operating Breed Multiplication Farms to the extent of 50% of the capital cost subject to a maximum of INR 2 crore per applicant.
2. The respondent namely Mr. Harsh Agrawal had applied for subsidy of INR 200 Lakhs under the Breed Multiplication Farms Scheme (in short referred as "BMF Scheme"), on the designated portal for establishing a Breed Multiplication Farm at Momanthal, Noida, Uttar Pradesh. The subsidy to the tune of INR 200 Lakhs was sanctioned in favour of the respondent by the Ministry vide order dated 01.12.2022.
3. In furtherance of the sanction, an agreement for implementation of Breed Multiplication Farm Programme under the Rashtriya Gokul Mission was entered into between the petitioner and the respondent on 02.02.2023. A copy of the said agreement is appended at Annexure B to the petition.
4. It is contended by the petitioner that as per the terms and conditions of the agreement, the petitioner was to release the subsidy in 4 (four) tranches of INR 50 Lakhs Page 2 of 21 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 01:35:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/ARBI.P/100/2025 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined each. The first tranche was to be released on the approval of the project, subject to the release of funds by the lending bank of the respondent. The release of subsequent tranches would depend on the actual physical progress of the project, as certified by the petitioner.
5. Accordingly, an amount of INR 50 Lakhs was released in the account of the respondent on 22.03.2023. On 31.03.2023, the first physical progress inspection of the project site was conducted by the officials deputed by the petitioner. In the said report, the respondent had assured that full infrastructure for the project with the capacity of 200 animals would be ready by September, 2023. A copy of the inspection report drawn on 31.03.2023 is appended at Annexure 'D' to this petition.
6. Another physical verification inspection was carried out by the officials deputed by the petitioner on 25.09.2023. However, it was noticed that there was virtually no progress in the project, inasmuch as, even the civil work for construction of shed had not commenced. The respondent had not even procured any livestock required for the project. During the course of visit, the respondent indicated that he Page 3 of 21 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 01:35:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/ARBI.P/100/2025 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined would require a further period of 12 months, i.e. till September, 2024 to complete the infrastructure for the project. Subsequent thereto, another inspection of the project site was made on 13.02.2024. During the course of the said inspection, it was noticed that no actual civil construction was undertaken by the respondent and temporary and poorly erected structures were attempted to be passed on as 'civil structures' for the project. Even, these erected structures were of substandard quality with rusted poles and torned sheets. The respondent was reprimanded and informed that the progress of the project was totally unsatisfactory and unless the respondent invested in proper infrastructure, the sanction would be cancelled.
7. Again, on 01.04.2024, a joint physical inspection of the Project site was undertaken by the officials of the petitioner and the Ministry in the presence of the respondent. A detailed verification of the shortcomings and deficiencies noticed during the inspection dated 13.02.2024 was undertaken. As no improvement or development was observed during the said inspection, the petitioner was constrained to recommend for cancellation of the Page 4 of 21 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 01:35:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/ARBI.P/100/2025 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined respondent's sanction given to the respondents to the Ministry on the account of poor and unsatisfactory progress.
8. Ultimately, by order dated 10.08.2024, the Ministry had cancelled the respondent's sanction granted vide earlier order dated 01.12.2022 and required the respondent to refund the 1st tranche of the subsidy worth INR 50 Lakhs with interest at the rate of 11% per annum as per the terms of the agreement. As the respondent had failed to refund the said amount, e-mail communications dated 18.09.2024 and 02.10.2024 were sent by the petitioner. It is further stated that subsequent to the cancellation of the sanction on 10.08.2024, the respondent had made several requests for reconsideration of the decision of cancellation of his grant to the petitioner and the Ministry.
9. In furtherance of such requests, again on 09.10.2024, a team of the officers of the petitioner and the Ministry had visited the project site for inspection. The inspection, however, did not reveal any improvement in the situation from 01.04.2024, the date of the last inspection. As a result of it, the petitioner was constrained to issue a demand notice calling upon the respondent to refund the amount of INR 50 Page 5 of 21 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 01:35:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/ARBI.P/100/2025 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined Lakh with interest as per the agreement. In response to the said demand notice, the respondent vide an email communication dated 11.12.2024 denied the assertions of the petitioner and claimed resumption of the subsidy and sanction. A legal notice was, thereafter, served to the petitioner and a formal notice invoking the arbitration clause under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1996) was sent on 11.02.2025, before filing the present petition.
10. In reply to the said notice, the respondent vide e-mail communications dated 11.02.2025 had objected to the place of Arbitration on the ground that the agreement was an unsigned, unexecuted and unstamped agreement. The respondent contended that either an arbitrator suggested by the respondent should be appointed and the arbitration should be conducted either in Noida, Uttar Pradesh or New Delhi. The contention of the petitioner herein is that since there is a dispute between the parties requiring arbitration, the matter is to be referred to the arbitration by allowing the present petition.
11. However, Mr. Harsh Agrawal, the respondent Page 6 of 21 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 01:35:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/ARBI.P/100/2025 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined appearing as party-in-person has relied upon various decisions of the Apex Court in his reply to the petition and would submit that the arbitration is to be held in the region of Noida or New Delhi. The assertion in the affidavit in reply to the present petition is that the purported jurisdiction clause in a draft memorandum of agreement that refers to arbitration in Anand, Gujarat, was never finalised or mutually agreed by the parties. The contention is that the principle of equality must be upheld at the stage of appointment of the arbitrator when one of the party is a Government entity and another is a private person. There is a reference of the decisions of the Apex Court in paragraph no. 5 of the affidavit in reply, to submit that any unilateral appointment or an arbitration clause that disproportionately favours the government entity deserves strict scrutiny, particularly where the dispute affects a micro-enterprise.
12. In paragraph no. 6 of the affidavit in reply, the respondent has stated that by virtue of Section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as "the MSMED Act, 2006"), the statutory dispute resolution mechanism overrides any Page 7 of 21 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 01:35:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/ARBI.P/100/2025 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined contractual arbitration clause. It is further contended in the paragraph no. '7' of the affidavit-in-reply that the respondent is a young entrepreneur who had invested heavily in building infrastructure and procuring livestock and is currently responsible for the welfare of nearly 20 dairy cattle, including pregnant livestock. Further the contention in the paragraph no. '8' of the reply is that conducting arbitration outside Noida or Delhi would impose an unjust financial and logistical burden upon a micro-entrepreneur with limited financial means denying fair access to justice. The expenses of travel, representation, witness production, and accommodation are unaffordable and would amount to procedural inequality.
13. The further contention in paragraph no. '9' of the reply is that the respondent requests that the venue of arbitration be fixed in Noida or New Delhi so that access to justice may not be rendered illusory by imposing disproportionate burdens on a weaker party. The further contention in paragraph no. 10 of the reply is that the dispute arises due to non-release of agreed grant exclusively for the Breed Multiplication Farm Project located in Village Momnathal, Page 8 of 21 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 01:35:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/ARBI.P/100/2025 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined Noida, Uttar Pradesh. All inspections, communications and contractual activities took place at that place by the regional office in Noida. The cause of action lies in Noida or Delhi. Therefore, the logical, just, and factually connected venue for arbitration is Noida or Delhi.
14. It is further contended that the petitioner, National Dairy Development Board has enormous presence and resources in Noida and New Delhi. Thus, conducting arbitration in Noida or New Delhi would cause no inconvenience to the petitioner, who is institutionally equipped and financially capable. Apart from these averments, it is further submitted in paragraph no. '16' that Clause 11 of the draft agreement, which empowers the petitioner to appoint a sole arbitrator, is violative of Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, as it undermines procedural fairness and equality.
15. Pertinent is to note that it is an admission on the part of the respondent in paragraph no. '18' of the affidavit-in- reply that the grant was sanctioned and money was released and transmitted in the bank account of the respondent namely Mr. Harsh Agrawal, appearing as a party-in-person. Page 9 of 21 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 01:35:48 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/ARBI.P/100/2025 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined It is also pertinent to note that the agreement signed by the parties and appended as Annexure 'B' to the present petition is in the individual name of Mr. Harsh Agrawal as the second part of the agreement and the beneficiary. The contention of the respondent - party-in-person that the project was conceived by Micro and Small Enterprise (MSE) created and registered by the respondent herein is, therefore, liable to be turned out as misconceived.
16. It may further be noted from the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent that apart from the jurisdictional questions raised therein, the contentions are on the merits of the claim of the petitioner to seek the refund of subsidy and the submission is that the petition is motivated to unjustly withhold the respondent being entitled to subsidy and avoid legitimate compensation claims. It also jeopardizes animal welfare and undermines national policies aimed at rural development and self-employment.
17. While giving the para-wise reply to the present petition from Page No. '125' of the paper-book, in reply to the paragraph no. 3. 5 of the petition, it is stated that no validly executed agreement existed as of 02.02.2023, and Annexure Page 10 of 21 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 01:35:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/ARBI.P/100/2025 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined 'B' of the petition clearly does not support this date. It is contended that despite repeated requests by the respondent and the concerned Bank, a duly executed agreement was not provided and this remains a critical lapse.
18. Further, the contention in the reply to the other paragraphs are pertaining to clauses of the agreement and the submission in reply to paragraph no. 3.7 is that only INR 50 Lakhs being half of the proposed INR 100 Lakhs was released on 22.03.2023, in direct violation of entitlement of the respondent. Further, the averments in the affidavit in reply are about the inspections carried out by the petitioner and denial to the averments made by the petitioner in the petition about 'no actual civil construction' with the contention that the said averments are completely false.
19. It is contended at page no. '134' which is part of the long paragraph no. 3.10, giving para-wise reply to the paragraph no. 3.10 of the petition, that the petitioner appears to be attempting to frame the matter as one of misappropriation and criminal breach of trust, which is outside the purview of arbitration. However, the arbitration remains maintainable for the respondent's legitimate claims Page 11 of 21 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 01:35:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/ARBI.P/100/2025 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined including the compensation of direct loss of INR 300 Lakh, loss of reputation, opportunity loss etc.; the release of the remaining INR 150 lakh subsidy; issuance of a letter of restoration of the project to UCO Bank.
20. There is further contention with regard to the arbitrary cancellation of project by the Ministry without giving the reasonable opportunity of hearing to the respondent. Further assertions are about the civil construction having been raised more than 24 months ago. The contention is that the cancellation letter contains false and contradictory statements and incorrectly mentions "misappropriation of funds and criminal breach of trust" Misappropriation is a criminal allegation and is not subject to arbitration. With these averments, it is further stated in paragraph no. 4 at page no. '146' of the paper-book, placed before this Court by Mr. Harsh Agrawal, party-in-person which reads as under:-
"Para 4. In response to para 4 of the petition, The Respondent further submits that respondent has never agreed, either orally, in writing, or by conduct, to hold arbitration proceedings in Anand or elsewhere in the State of Gujarat. No stamp paper was purchased in Gujarat. In fact, a stamp paper worth INR 300 was purchased in Noida on February 6, 2023 was handed over with objections marked, to the inspecting officer Page 12 of 21 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 01:35:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/ARBI.P/100/2025 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined Dr. Satyapal Kurrey, Manager (AB), NDDB Noida at NDDB residential complex (Plot A84, Block A, Sector 17, Noida, Uttar Pradesh 201301, Uttar Pradesh). That the statement by the petitioner that "The respondent signed the agreement in presence of 2(two) witnesses, affixed an e-stamp of INR 500 dated February 6, 2025"
is totally false and is intended to mislead the court. The Annexure R of the Petition itself verifies respondent's submission/objection. The purported draft Memorandum of Agreement relied upon by the Petitioner is vague, contradictory, undated, and unsigned by either party. It is not a legally binding document and cannot confer jurisdiction or determine the venue or seat of arbitration on the basis of equity and natural justice. Furthermore, the said draft attempts to vary the terms of the original grant scheme, which is impermissible under law, being first clause of this concocted document."
21. The averments are, thus, pertaining to the document appended as Annexure 'R' of the petition which is the draft memorandum agreement signed by the respondent and two witnesses, which according to the petitioner, was sent through e-mail and was later signed by the petitioner in its office, resulting into an execution of agreement between the parties.
22. The perusal of the aforesaid paragraph indicates that the dispute has been raised about legal sanctity of the draft memorandum appended as Annexure 'R' to the petition. It is Page 13 of 21 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 01:35:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/ARBI.P/100/2025 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined further stated that the agreement is undated, unsigned by both parties, and not stamped in Gujarat and, as such, is not binding and cannot determine the venue or seat of arbitration on the basis of equity and natural justice.
23. The further statement in the paragraph no. 9 of the affidavit at page no. '148' is that the petitioner's allegation that the respondent has shown unwillingness to form an arbitral tribunal is incorrect. It is contended that the respondent invoked and proposed a panel of arbitrators on 01.02.2025 and it is the petitioner who failed to cooperate by refusing to concur with any name from the panel. The respondent for the sake of equity and natural justice invoked arbitration to be held at Noida/New Delhi.
24. Further statement in the paragraph no. '13' of the affidavit is that the petitioner has prayed for constitution of Arbitral Tribunal and the respondent prays for place/venue/seat of arbitration at Noida/ New Delhi for the sake of equity and justice.
25. Other assertions in the affidavit are about the legal prepositions and final prayer made on behalf of the Page 14 of 21 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 01:35:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/ARBI.P/100/2025 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined respondent to hold that no validly executed arbitration agreement exists conferring jurisdiction to the Court in Gujarat and the present petition is premature and not maintainable. In the alternative, the prayer is to fix the seat and venue of arbitration at Noida or New Delhi or dismiss the petition under Section 11 (6) of the Act, 1996 for lack of territorial jurisdiction, as the cause of action did not arise in Gujarat and the respondent has no operational presence here.
26. Taking note of the above assertions from the pleadings of the parties, this Court finds that there is no dispute about the execution of agreement which is appended as Annexure 'B' to the present petition. The Arbitration Clause 11 of the agreement dated 02.02.2023 at page no. 30 of the paper- book reads as under:-
"Any dispute arising out of, or in connection with this agreement shall be settled amicably between the parties and if it is not settled amicably, it shall be referred to a sole arbitrator, to be appointed by NDDB, who shall adjudicate the same as per provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The award of the sole arbitrator shall be final and binding on both the parties. The language of the arbitral proceedings shall be in English. The venue of the arbitration shall be Anand and the competent court in Anand shall have jurisdiction in respect of all the matters arising out of, Page 15 of 21 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 01:35:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/ARBI.P/100/2025 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined under or in connection with this Agreement."
27. The agreement contains signature of the respondent, Mr. Harsh Agrawal as beneficiary, as it is evident from page no. '30' of the paper-book.
28. As there is a categorical assertion in the Arbitration Clause about the venue of the arbitration being at Anand, no plausible objection can be taken by the respondent - party-in- person about the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the application under Section 11 (6) of the Act, 1996, for appointment of Arbitrator at the instance of the petitioner.
29. The issue about the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court to deal with the matters arising out of the agreement containing Arbitration Clause providing for the 'venue' or 'place' of arbitration has been settled with the decision of the Apex Court in the case of BGS SGS Soma JV V/s. NHPC Limited reported in (2020) 4 SCC 234, which reads as under:-
Tests for determination of "seat"
60. The judgments of the English Courts have examined the concept of the "juridical seat" of the arbitral proceedings, and have laid down several important tests Page 16 of 21 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 01:35:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/ARBI.P/100/2025 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined in order to determine whether the "seat" of the arbitral proceedings has, in fact, been indicated in the agreement between the parties. The judgment of Cooke, J.,in Shashoua states:
"34. London Arbitration is a well known phenomenon which is often chosen by foreign nationals with a different law, such as the law of New York, governing the substantive rights of the parties. This is because of the legislative framework and supervisory powers of the courts here which many parties are keen to adopt. When therefore there is an express designation of the arbitration venue as London and no designation of any alternative place as the seat, combined with a supranational body of rules governing the arbitration and no other significant contrary indicia, the inexorable conclusion is, to my mind, that London is the juridical seat and English law the curial law. In my judgment it is clear that either London has been designated by the parties to the arbitration agreement as the seat of the arbitration, or, having regard to the parties' agreement and all the relevant circumstances, it is the seat to be determined in accordance with the final fall back provision of Section 3 of the Arbitration Act."
61. It will thus be seen that wherever there is an express designation of a "venue", and no designation of any alternative place as the "seat", combined with a supranational body of rules governing the arbitration, and no other significant contrary indicia, the inexorable conclusion is that the stated venue is actually the juridical seat of the arbitral proceeding.
30. As there is no concept of "seat" in the domestic arbitration and the words used in Section 20 (1) of the Act, 1996 are that "the parties are free to agree on the place of arbitration". The place or the venue of the arbitration having been agreed between the parties as stated in the Arbitration Page 17 of 21 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 01:35:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/ARBI.P/100/2025 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined Clause 11 of the Agreement in the present case, no dispute can be raised about the 'venue' or 'place' of the arbitration, which has been agreed upon by the parties being Anand, State of Gujarat.
31. In view of the observation made in paragraph no. '61' in the case of BGS SGS Soma (supra) wherever there is an expressed designation of a 'venue (place)' as per Section 20 (1) of the Act, 1966, the inexorable conclusion is that the stated 'venue' is actually the juridical seat of the arbitral proceeding.
32. As regards the contention of the respondent about the existence of a valid agreement, the dispute about the signing of the agreement by the parties, the reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Glencore International AG V/s. Shree Ganesh Metals and Another reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1815, which clinches the issue, in a matter similar to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Reference may be made to paragraph no. '19' of the said decision, wherein it was observed that an arbitration agreement can be inferred even from exchange of letters Page 18 of 21 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 01:35:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/ARBI.P/100/2025 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined including communication through electronic means, which provide a record of the agreement. The mere fact that the contract was not signed by one of the party would not obviate from this principle when the conduct of the parties in furtherance of the said contract clearly manifested the other party's acceptance of the terms and conditions contained therein, which would include the arbitration agreement in clause mentioned thereof.
33. In the instance case, the draft agreement appended as Annexure 'R' to the present petition had been sent to the respondent - Mr. Harsh Agrawal who not only put his signature on the same but also got the signatures of two witnesses. The scanned copy of the signed draft agreement was sent by the respondent through e-mail to the petitioner on 06.02.2023 which is evident from Page No. '94' of the paper-book. The e-mail address of the respondent at Page No. '94' of the paper-book can also be compared with the document at Page No. '87', which indisputably is the objection to Section 21 notice sent by the respondent - Mr. Harsh Agrawal through e-mail dated 11.02.2025. All objections taken by the respondent appearing as party-in- Page 19 of 21 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 01:35:48 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/ARBI.P/100/2025 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined person to the maintainability of the petition under Section 11 (6) of the Act, 1996 are, thus, liable to be turned out. As regards the objection about the merits of the claim of the petitioner, it is provided that all those issues have to be agitated before the arbitrator and will be decided by the learned Arbitrator without being influenced by any of the observations made hereinabove.
34. In view of the above, the present petition stands allowed.
ORDER i. Mr Justice V. P. Patel, Former Judge, High Court of Gujarat, having address at: D-39, Swastik - 1, Bunglow & Row House, Opp. Gujarat High Court, RC Technical Road, Ghatlodiya, Ahmedabad -
380061, Mob.no. 7574812176, Email ID:
[email protected] is hereby
appointed as the sole Arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the parties in accordance with the Arbitration Centre (Domestic and International), High Court of Gujarat Rules, 2021. Both Parties would also be governed by said Rules. Page 20 of 21 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 01:35:48 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/ARBI.P/100/2025 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined ii. Registry to communicate this order to the sole Arbitrator forthwith by Speed Post.
iii. Pending application/s, if any, stands consigned to records.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ ) VARSHA DESAI Page 21 of 21 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 01:35:48 IST 2025