Bombay High Court
M/S. TRIGYN TECHNOLOGIES LTD THR SRIKIRAN YALAMANCHALIversusCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER NASHIK MUNICIPAL SMART CITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The court terminated the appointment of the sole arbitrator and ordered the parties to appoint a three‑member arbitral tribunal as stipulated in the contract.
Summary
M/s. Trigyn Technologies Ltd. filed a commercial arbitration petition against the Chief Executive Officer of Nashik Municipal Smart City Development Corporation, alleging misconduct by the previously appointed sole arbitrator, a retired judge. The petitioner later filed an affidavit withdrawing all allegations and expressing no objection to the arbitrator's recusal. The court, noting the withdrawal, declined to examine the misconduct claims and terminated the sole arbitrator's mandate. It then directed the parties to appoint a three‑member arbitral tribunal in accordance with Clause 5.34.4 of their agreement, with each party naming one arbitrator and those two arbitrators jointly selecting the third. The venue for the arbitration was fixed at Mumbai and the petition was subsequently disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether the court must entertain allegations of misconduct against an arbitrator after the petitioner withdraws them
- Effect of withdrawal of allegations on the continuation of the arbitrator's appointment
- Whether the parties may replace a sole arbitrator with a three‑member tribunal as per the contractual arbitration clause
- Procedural steps for appointing the third arbitrator under the clause
Legislation cited
Subjects
- Arbitration
- Recusal of arbitrator
- Appointment of arbitrators
- Arbitration clause
- Termination of mandate
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996
- Commercial arbitration
Judgment
LSP 1 4 coarp 3.26.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Commercial Arbitration Petition No.3 of 2026
M/s. Trigyn Technologies Ltd.
Through Srikiran Yalamanc Hali … Petitioner
v/s.
Chief Executive Officer Nashik Municipal
Smart City Development Corporation
Ltd. … Respondents
Ms. Drishti Shah i/b. Ms. Rekha Advocate for the Appellant
Rajgopal
Mr.Abhishek T. Ingle i/b.Mr. Advocate for respondent No.1.
M.L. Patil
Mr. Vedant Bende i/b. Mr. Advocate for respondent No.2.
Mandar Limaye
CORAM : S.M. MODAK, J
DATE : 24th August 2026.
P.C. :
1. It is true after hearing all the sides this Court on 21 st August
2026 has kept this matter today for the purpose of filing an affidavit
Digitally
signed by
LATA
SUNIL
LATA SUNIL
PANJWANI
Date:
PANJWANI 2026.08.28
by the Petitioner thereby withdrawing allegations against the
12:56:47
+0530
erstwhile Arbitrator/Retired Judge of this Court.
2. The Petitioner has filed an affidavit affirmed by their Head of
India business Mr. Srikiran Yalamanchali. He has stated that he is
withdrawing the allegations and giving no objection in recusal of the
LSP 2 4 coarp 3.26.doc
earlier Arbitrator. The allegations raised by the Petitioner about the
manner of conducting arbitration by the earlier Arbitrator have been
strongly denied by the learned Arbitrator. But in view of the
withdrawal of the allegations, this Court need not to go into those
allegations. In view of that the mandate needs to be terminated and
new Arbitrators are to be appointed.
3. There is an arbitration clause which suggests of arbitration by 3
Arbitrators. The relevant portion of Clause No.5.34.4 is reproduced
below:
“If any disputes or differences between the Parties are not
resolved under clause 5.34.2 above, the same shall be
referred for arbitration under the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 for the time being in force.
The arbitral tribunal shall consist of 3 (three) arbitrators- one
each nominated by each Party and the third one being
nominated by these two arbitrators. The Contractor and
NMSCDCL will continue to perform their respective
obligations under the Agreement during the arbitration
proceedings.”
4. Earlier by consent sole Arbitrator was appointed by this Court
but now the parties are willing to have 3 Arbitrators as per the said
clauses. The Petitioner is suggesting name of Shri Rajesh G. Ketkar,
J (Retired Judge of this Court) and Respondent is suggesting name of
Shri R.M.Sawant, J (Retired Judge of this Court). In view of that as
LSP 3 4 coarp 3.26.doc
per the clause let both the learned Arbitrators to nominate 3 rd
Arbitrator. In view of that following order is passed:
ORDER
(i) The mandate appointing Mr. A.M.Dhavale , J is terminated.
Both the parties to resolve the issue of payment of his fees.
(ii) Let Shri Rajesh G. Ketkar, J and Shri R.M. Sawant, J to
appoint the 3rd Arbitrator.
5. It is made clear that venue of arbitration will be at Mumbai.
6. Both the parties are directed to approach learned Arbitrators by
having correspondence with them and then to decide future course
of action.
7. Arbitration Petition is disposed of.
(S.M. MODAK, J.)
Checking your session…