Bhupendra Medaram RajpurohitversusMUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI

                                                 42-iii-carap-225-2026.doc


     SHABNOOR

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
            ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

        COMM ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO.225 OF 2026

Bhupendra Medaram Rajpurohit                 … Applicant
           V/s.
Municipal Corporation of Greater
Mumbai & Anr.                                … Respondents

Mr. Ranjeev Carvalho a/w Mr. Rishab Murali,
Ms.Sabeena Mahadik and Pankaj Uttaradhi for
Applicant.
Ms. Pooja Yadav a/w Komal Punjabi, for Respondent
– BMC.

                            CORAM      : AMIT BORKAR, J.

                            DATED      : AUGUST 21, 2026

P.C.:
1.      The present Application has been filed under Section 11 of
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, hereinafter referred
to as “the Act”, seeking the appointment of an Arbitrator for
adjudication of the disputes and differences arising between the
parties under the Tender Document read with the General
Conditions of Contract for Construction Work, 2016. The
arbitration agreement between the parties is contained in
Section 9 of the Tender Document read with amended Clause
13(e) of the General Conditions of Contract for Construction
Work, 2016. In the interest of brevity, the arbitration agreement




                                 1
                                                 42-iii-carap-225-2026.doc


is not reproduced herein. It is sufficient to note that this Court
has jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present Application.

2.    The record indicates that the Applicant invoked the
arbitration agreement by issuing a notice dated 15 November
2025. Despite service of the said notice, the Respondents have
neither furnished any reply thereto nor filed any affidavit in
reply to the present Application.

3.    Upon perusal of the material placed on record, it is evident
that the Applicant has duly invoked the arbitration agreement in
accordance with its terms.

4.    In view of the order dated 3 July 2026 passed by this
Court in the present proceedings, the objection regarding the
alleged non-compliance with the pre-arbitration mechanism
does not survive for consideration. All other objections and
contentions are expressly kept open to be raised before the
learned Arbitral Tribunal in accordance with law.

5.    This Court is satisfied that a valid and subsisting
arbitration agreement exists between the parties and that the
same has been duly invoked by the Applicant. It would,
therefore, be appropriate to refer the disputes and differences
arising out of or in connection with the Tender Document and
the General Conditions of Contract referred to above to
arbitration before a Sole Arbitrator.

6.    In the aforesaid circumstances, the present Application
filed under Section 11 of the Act is disposed of in terms of the



                                 2
                                                  42-iii-carap-225-2026.doc


following order:

           A)      Ayushi Anandpara Parekh, Advocate of this
           court, is hereby appointed as the Sole Arbitrator to
           adjudicate    upon    the   disputes   and     differences
           between the parties arising out of and in connection
           with the Agreement referred to above; Office
           Address:- C/o Rohaan Cama, Office Nos. 17-18, 1st
           Floor, Islam Building, Veer Nariman Road, Fort,
           Mumbai – 400 001, Contact No. - 9833144496.

           Email - [email protected].
           B)      A copy of this Order will be communicated
           to the Learned Sole Arbitrator by the Advocates
           for the Applicant within a period of one week
           from today. The Applicant shall provide the
           contact and communication particulars of the
           parties to the Arbitral Tribunal along with a copy
           of this Order;

           C)      The Learned Sole Arbitrator is requested to
           forward the statutory Statement of Disclosure
           under Section 11(8) read with Section 12(1) of
           the Act to the Advocates for the Applicant so as
           to enable them to file the same in the Registry of
           this Court. The Registry of this Court shall retain
           the said Statement on the file of this Applicant
           and a copy of the same shall be furnished by the



                                 3
                                               42-iii-carap-225-2026.doc


Advocates for the Applicant to the Advocates for
the Respondent;

D)      The Learned Sole Arbitrator is requested to
forward the statutory Statement of Disclosure
under Section 11(8) read with Section 12(1) of
the Act to the parties within a period of two
weeks from receipt of a copy of this Order;

E)      The    parties        shall   appear   before       the
Learned Sole Arbitrator on such date and at such
place    as    indicated,        to   obtain    appropriate
directions with regard to conduct of the
arbitration including fixing a schedule for
pleadings, examination of witnesses, if any,
schedule of hearings etc. At such meeting, the
parties shall provide a valid and functional email
address along with mobile and landline numbers
of the respective Advocates of the parties to the
Arbitral Tribunal.             Communications to such
email addresses shall constitute valid service of
correspondence           in      connection      with       the
arbitration;

F)      All arbitral costs and fees of the Arbitral
Tribunal as per Schedule IV shall be borne by the
parties equally in the first instance, and shall be
subject to any final Award that may be passed by
the Tribunal in relation to costs.


                          4
                                                 42-iii-carap-225-2026.doc


7.    All issues on merits are expressly kept open to be agitated
before the arbitral tribunal appointed hereby.

8.    All actions required to be taken pursuant to this order
shall be taken upon receipt of a downloaded copy as available
on this Court’s website.


                                          (AMIT BORKAR, J.)




                                5