ST.

JOSEPH’S COLLEGE OF LAW

(Affiliated to KSLU)
Residency Road, Bangalore-560 025

CLINICAL COURSE:
ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION
SYSTEMS

BA LLB ‘A’

GROUP - H
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We extend our sincere gratitude to Dr. Pauline Priya, Principal of St. Joseph’s College of Law,
Bangalore, and to our subject teacher, Mr. K.L. Srinivasa, Advocate and Visiting Faculty at St.
Joseph's College of Law. Their guidance and support were instrumental in the preparation of our
report on ADR Simulation Exercises. We also appreciate their encouragement, which has greatly
enhanced our understanding of various ADR systems, including Arbitration, Conciliation,
Mediation, and Negotiation.

Place: Bengaluru.

Date: 27/05/2024
 STATEMENT OF CLAIM

Before the Arbitral Tribunal at Bangalore Arbitration Case No. /2024

Between

MR. MOHANRAJ
S/o Raj
Aged about 46 years,
R/at 488. 12th Main,
HAL 2nd stage, Indiranagar
Bangalore-560038 : Claimant

And

MR. SUNIL
S/o Kumar
Aged about 54 years
R/at 344, Windsor
Vijayanagara, Immadihalli
Main road, Whitefield
Bangalore-560067 : Respondent

FACTS OF THE CASE

1. Mr. Mohanraj entered into an agreement of sale with Mr. Sunil to purchase the
house property located at No. 222, 4th Cross, VII Block, Bangalore-560019,
measuring 30 x 40 feet. An advance amount of Rs. 99,00,000/- (Rupees Ninety
Nine Lakhs only) was paid by Mr. Mohanraj. The total sale consideration for the
property was fixed at Rs. 5,00,00,000/- (Rupees Five Crores only). It was agreed
that in case of any dispute, the matter would be referred to an Arbitral Tribunal
consisting of a Sole Arbitrator or a panel of three Arbitrators, and that the
provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, would apply to the
arbitration proceedings. Jayanagar, known for its cool and pollution-free
atmosphere, is a beautiful commercial and residential area. Mr. Mohanraj further
agreed to pay the remaining balance of Rs. 4,01,00,000/- (Rupees Four Crores and
One Lakh only) to Mr. Sunil within three months. Mr. Sunil handed over all the
original title documents pertaining to the property to Mr. Mohanraj. Meanwhile,
within a month, the property prices in the locality increased by 50% due to a rise
in demand and other factors typically influencing the real estate market.

2. After 45 days from the date of the agreement of sale, Mr. Mohanraj approached
the seller, Mr. Sunil, and informed him that he was ready and willing to perform
his part of the contract by paying the remaining balance amount. He requested Mr.
Sunil to fix a date for the completion of the sale transaction and for the
registration of the Absolute Sale Deed in respect of the aforesaid property in favor
of Mr. Mohanraj. At this juncture, Mr. Sunil informed Mr. Mohanraj that he would
not be able to complete the sale transaction as his family members, consisting of
his wife, two sons, and a daughter, had clearly instructed him to cancel the sale
agreement.

3. According to clause 10 of the Sale Agreement, if the seller is unable to perform

his part of the contract, he must refund the advance amount paid along with
interest at 18% per annum and a penalty of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore
only). Mr. Mohanraj, who specifically wanted to buy a property in Jayanagar, was
aggrieved by Mr. Sunil's refusal to complete the sale. Consequently, Mr. Mohanraj
issued a legal notice demanding that Mr. Sunil execute an absolute sale deed for
the property by receiving the remaining sale consideration. He also warned Mr.
Sunil that failure to comply with these demands within 15 days would result in the
initiation of arbitration proceedings and named his arbitrator in the legal notice.
Mr. Sunil failed to comply with these demands, leading to the constitution of an
Arbitral Tribunal. The dispute is now pending before the Arbitral Tribunal.
 ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the claimant can demonstrate that this Hon'ble Tribunal is authorized to hear the
case and render a decision directing partial performance in accordance with the terms of
the Sale Agreement.

2. Whether the claimant proves that the respondent is bound to perform his part of the
contract whilst disputing the validity of the reasons stated by the claimant for not doing
so.

3. Whether the respondent can prove the reasons he has stated for canceling the said sale
agreement.

4. Whether the respondent can provide valid justification that he is not obligated to refund
the advance amount, interest at 18% p.a. as well as the penalty amount of Rs.
1,00,00,000/- to the claimant.

5. What order/award to the extent?

 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 1: Jurisdiction of the Tribunal

As it was agreed earlier, that in case any dispute arises between the parties, it shall be referred to
an Arbitral Tribunal consisting of a Sole Arbitrator or an Arbitral Tribunal consisting of 3
Arbitrators and the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, shall apply to the
arbitration proceedings.
The provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 does not expressly or by necessary
implication prohibit reference to Arbitration of issues relating to specific performance. The
specific performance of an agreement for sale with contractual rights and so it is open to the
parties to refer to the issues relating to specific performance to Arbitration.
The claimant gave an intimation to the seller that if he failed to comply with his demands within
15 days he would initiate Arbitration proceedings and accordingly named his Arbitrator in the
Legal Notice. The dispute is now pending before the Arbitral Tribunal as the seller failed to
comply with the demands. This was upheld by Olympus v Meena Vijay Khetan and Ors (1999) 5
SCC 651.
The Calcutta High Court in the case of Keventer Agro Ltd v. Seegram Co. Ltd App 498 of 1997
& Apo 449 (401) dt. 27-1-1998 (Cal) held that under S.20 of the Specific Relief Act 1963, talks
about discretion as to decreeing specific performance does not exclude parties from exercising a
forum of their choice. It made clear that the 'court' includes an arbitrator.
In Deccan paper Mills Co. v. Regency Mahavir properties and ors (2021) 4 SCC 786 it was
opined that in matters regarding specific performance of contract relating to immovable property,
the arbitrator has power and jurisdiction to grant specific performance of contract relating to
immovable property under S.10 and 8.20 of Specific Relief Act 1963 and S.8, S. 11 and S.16 of
Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996.
Therefore, this Hon'ble Tribunal is authorized to hear the case and render a decision directing
partial performance in accordance with the terms of the Sale Agreement.
ISSUE 2: Obligation to Perform the Contract

Both parties were competent to fulfill their obligations under the terms of the agreement, and
there was an offer of acceptance made when the agreement was entered into.
Despite having three months to complete the sale agreement, the claimant approached the
respondent within 45 days of paying the remaining balance of Rs. 4,01,00,000 (Four Crores and
One Lakh only) having already given an advance of Rs. 99,00,000 (Ninety-Nine Lakhs).
This proves that the respondent was bound to perform his part of the contract.

ISSUE 3: Right to sue upon Cancellation of Agreement

The contract fulfilled the requirement of essentials of a valid contract. It was based on
acceptance, consideration, communication, promise, out of free consent, lawful object, and
lawful consideration. Hence, executing Section 10 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 as noted in
Bhagwandas Goverdhandas Kedia v. M/s. Girdharilal Parshottamdas & Co., AIR 1966 SC 543
17. The Supreme Court observed that Section 4 of the ICA deals with the Communication and
Acceptance of the offer and states that the communication of a proposal is complete when it
comes to the knowledge of the person and the acceptance of the proposal as against the proposer
is complete when it is put in a course of transmission to him and in case of the acceptor when it
comes to the knowledge of the proposer. According to the section 37 of the Indian Contract Act,
the parties must either perform or offer to perform their respective promises. Since my client has
performed his part of the contract the respondent is obliged to complete the said transaction by
fulfilling his part. The respondent handed over all the documents pertaining to the title in respect
of the said property which shows that he agreed with the claimant.

In Ghanshyam v Yogendra Rathi the Supreme Court ruled that Though Agreement To Sell
Doesn't Confer Title, Possessory Right Of Prospective Purchaser is Protected Under Sec 53A TP
Act.
In the case of N.P. Thiruganam (D) by L.R.S. vs Dr. R. that a proposal purchaser must always be
and continue to be ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Readiness has been
interpreted to mean financial capacity. Financial capacity must exist to pay the balance sale
consideration right from the time of entering into the agreement to sell, till the disposal of the
suit. Here, the claimant has proved that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of
the contract and also showed financial capacity by paying the advance of Rs. 99,00,000 (Ninery-
Nine Lakhs only). Section 37 of the Indian Contract Act mentions the contractual obligation
between the parties. It mentions that "the parties to a contract must either perform or offer to
perform their respective promises unless such performance is dispensed with or excused under
the provisions of this Act, or any other law." Here, the claimant further agreed to pay the
remaining balance amount of Rss. 4,01,000 (Rupees Four Crores and One Lakh only) towards
the sale consideration amount to the respondent within 3 months. But the respondent failed to
complete the sale transaction and canceled the sale agreement. The respondent at the request of
the claimant refused to execute the sale agreement. An agreement made with the consent of both
the parties gives rise to contractual obligations and the respondent was at default for not fulfilling
his obligations. He did not intimate earlier by issuing a prior notice but denied sale of property
when the claimant came to the respondent.
Hence proved that the claimant fulfills all the essentials for a valid contract under Section 10 of
the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

ISSUE 4: Liability for Penalty and Compensation

The respondent is liable to pay the penalty compensation as per Clause 10 of the sale agreement
which was mutually agreed by both the parties states that, if seller is unable to perform his part
of contract, he shall refund the advance amount paid along with the interest to be calculated at
18% pa and also penalty amount of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- only. He is bound by Section 74 of The
Indian Contract Act-1872 which deals with the Compensation for Breach of contract where
penalty is stipulated for. So here the penalty amount is Rs. 1,00,00,000 as stipulated in the sale
agreement and because the respondent is unable to perform his part of the contract he is bound to
pay the penalty amount. Therefore, the claimant is entitled to the refunded advance amount with
18% pa and penalty amount of 1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore only).
 PRAYER

Wherefore, the claimant in this petition most humbly prays that this Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly
be pleased to pass an order according to the following:

1. To direct the respondent to perform his part of the contract and

enforce a contractual agreement into completion of sale transaction
OR
To direct the respondent to refund advance amount with an interest
of 18% p.a and penalty of sum of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- (One Crore
only) for damage caused to the claimant due to the breach of
contract.
2. To direct the respondent to pay additional damages of Rs.
3,00,000/-(Three Lakhs only) for having aggrieved and undergone
distress, agony and loss for not being able to purchase the property
inspite of having the financial ability for the same.
3. To direct the respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Two
Lakhs only) towards court proceedings.
4. Grant such other reliefs as this Tribunal deems fit after having
heard the facts and circumstances of this case, in the interest of
justice and equity.
 VERIFICATION

I, , the claimant do hereby declare and verify that what is stated is true to the best
of my knowledge, information and belief.

Bengaluru Claimant

Date: 27/5/2024
 STATEMENT OF DEFENCE

Before the Arbitral Tribunal at Bangalore Arbitration Case No. /2024

Between

MR. MOHANRAJ
S/o Raj
Aged about 46 years,
R/at 488. 12th Main,
HAL 2nd stage, Indiranagar
Bangalore-560038 : Claimant

And

MR. SUNIL
S/o Kumar
Aged about 54 years
R/at 344, Windsor
Vijayanagara, Immadihalli
Main road, Whitefield
Bangalore-560067 : Respondent
 FACTS OF THE CASE

Mohanraj ………. Claimant

Vs.

Sunil .……… Respondent

Mr. Mohanraj entered in to an Agreement of sale with Mr. Sunil for the purpose of buying house
property bearing No. 222, 4th Cross, VII Block, Bangalore-560019, measuring 30 x 40 feet, and
paid an advance amount of Rs. 99,00,000/-(Rupees Ninety Nine lakhs only). The sale
consideration amount fixed for the said sale was Rs.5,00,00,000/- (Rupees Five Crores only)
only. It was further agreed between the parties that in case of any dispute, the dispute shall be
referred to an Arbitral Tribunal consisting of a Sole Arbitrator or Arbitral Tribunal consisting of
3 Arbitrators and the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. 1996, shall apply to the
arbitration proceedings. Jayanagar is a beautiful commercial and residential area and it is known
for its cool and pollution free atmosphere. Mr. Mohanraj (purchaser) further agreed to pay the
remaining balance amount of Rs.4,01,00,000 (Rs. Four Crores and One lakh only) towards the
sale consideration amount to Mr. Sunil (seller) within 3 months. Mr. Sunil handed over all the
original documents pertaining to title in respect of the aforesaid property to the purchaser Mr.
Mohanraj. Meanwhile in a month's time the property prices in the said locality increased by 50%
due to rise in demand for house properties and for other reasons which usually govern the real
estate market.

After the expiry of 45 days from the date of the agreement of sale Mr. Mohanraj approached the
seller Mr. Sunil and informed him that he is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract
by paying the remaining balance amount and accordingly requested him to fix a date for
completion of sale transaction and also for registration of Absolute Sale Deed in respect of the
aforesaid site property in favour of Mr. Mohanraj. At this juncture, the seller Mr. Sunil informed
Mr. Mohanraj that he would not be able to complete the sale transaction as his family members
consisting of his wife, two sons and a daughter have clearly instructed him to cancel the said sale
agreement.

According to clause 10 of the Sale Agreement, if seller is unable to perform his part of the
contract, he shall refund the advance amount paid along with interest to be calculated at 18% p.a.
and also penalty amount of Rs. 1,00,00,000/-only. The purchaser wanted to buy a site in
Jayanagar only. Aggrieved by the negative attitude of the Seller to sell the site, Mr. Mohanraj
caused a legal notice demanding the seller to execute an absolute sale deed in respect of
aforesaid property by receiving the remaining amount of sale consideration. He also cautioned
the seller that if he fails to comply with his demands within 15 days he would initiate Arbitration
proceedings and accordingly named his Arbitrator in the Legal Notice. The seller failed to
comply with the demands raised by the purchaser and subsequently an Arbitral Tribunal came to
be constituted. Accordingly, the dispute is now pending before the Arbitral Tribunal.

ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the claimant can demonstrate that this Hon'ble Tribunal is authorized to hear the case
and render a decision directing partial performance in accordance with the terms of the Sale
Agreement.

2. Whether the claimant proves that the respondent is bound to perform his part of the contract
whilst disputing the validity of the reasons stated by the claimant for not doing so?

3. Whether the respondent can prove the reasons he has stated for canceling the said sale
agreement.

4. Whether the respondent can provide valid justification that he is not obligated to refund the
advance amount, interest at 18% p.a. as well as the penalty amount of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- to the
claimant.

5. What order/award to the extent?

 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 1: Jurisdiction of the Tribunal

The Agreement of Sale includes a valid arbitration clause, making this Tribunal competent to
hear the matter under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Supreme Court in
"Olympus Superstructures Pvt. Ltd. v. Meena Vijay Khetan and Ors." (AIR 1999 SC 2101)
confirmed that arbitration tribunals can grant specific performance. There is no provision in the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act that prohibits the arbitration of specific performance claims
related to immovable property.

ISSUE 2: Obligation to Perform the Contract

Mr. Mohanraj acted in good faith throughout this transaction. The substantial advance payment
of Rs.99, 00,000 clearly establishes his intention and readiness to fulfill his part of the contract.
Mr. Sunil’s refusal to complete the sale despite Mr. Mohanraj’s promptness in arranging the
balance payment provides a sufficient cause of action for seeking relief from this Tribunal.

Both parties entered into a binding Agreement of Sale. Under Section 37 of the Indian Contract
Act, the parties must perform or offer to perform their respective promises. Mr. Mohanraj
performed his part by paying the advance and being ready to pay the remaining balance within
the stipulated time. Mr. Sunil’s refusal, based on family objections, does not negate his
contractual obligation.

ISSUE 3: Right to Cancel the Agreement

Mr. Sunil contends that he had the liberty to cancel the Agreement of Sale due to family
pressure. However, no prior notice was given to Mr. Mohanraj regarding this intention. The
Supreme Court in "Olympus Superstructures Pvt. Ltd." emphasized that contractual obligations
must be honored unless valid legal grounds are presented. Mr. Sunil's failure to fulfill his
obligations and lack of valid justification or prior notice does not give him the right to
unilaterally cancel the agreement.
ISSUE 4: Liability for Penalty and Compensation

Clause 10 of the Agreement of Sale explicitly states that if the seller is unable to perform his part
of the contract, he must refund the advance with interest at 18% per annum and pay a penalty of
Rs.1, 00, 00,000. Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 mandates compensation for breach
of contract where a penalty is stipulated. Since Mr. Sunil failed to perform his contractual
obligations, he is liable to pay the agreed penalty and interest on the advance amount.

While Mr. Sunil may argue that Mr. Mohanraj refused to accept the refund amount, a legal
notice was sent demanding either the execution of the sale deed or the refund of the advance with
interest and penalty. Mr. Sunil did not respond or comply with these demands, leading to the
initiation of arbitration proceedings. Mr. Mohanraj was always willing to settle the matter as per
the terms of the agreement, and any assertion to the contrary is unfounded.
 PRAYER

Wherefore, the defendant in this petition most humbly prays that this Hon'ble Tribunal may
kindly be pleased to pass an order according to the following:

1. An order from this Hon’ble Tribunal

directing Mr. Sunil to execute the Absolute
Sale Deed for the property No. 222, 4th
Cross, VII Block, Bangalore-560019, as per
the terms of the Agreement of Sale dated
10/03/2021.
2. Alternatively, if the sale is not completed, an
order directing Mr. Sunil to refund the
advance amount of Rs. 99,00,000 with
interest calculated at 18% per annum from
the date of payment until the date of refund
and to pay the penalty amount of Rs.
1,00,00,000 as stipulated in the agreement.
3. An order directing Mr. Sunil to pay
additional damages of Rs. 5,00,000 for the
mental agony and trauma caused due to the
breach.
4. An order directing Mr. Sunil to pay a sum of
Rs. 50,000 towards the cost of proceedings.
5. Any other relief that the Hon’ble Tribunal
deems fit and proper in the circumstances of
this case.
 VERIFICATION

I, , the defendant do hereby declare and verify that what is stated is true to the
best of my knowledge, information and belief.

Bengaluru Defendant

Date: 27/5/2024

ARBITRAL AWARD

Arbitration Case No. /2024

Between

MR. Mohanraj

S/o Raj

Aged about 46 years,

R/at 488. 12th Main,

HAL 2nd stage, Indiranagar

Bangalore-560038 : Claimant

And

MR. SUNIL

S/o Kumar

Aged about 54 years

R/at 344, Windsor

Vijayanagara, Immadihalli

Main road, Whitefield

Bangalore-560067 : Respondent

ARBITRATORS:

1. MS. ANOUSHKA G (Arbitrator)

BY:

1. MS. KIRANMAYI (Counsel for Claimant)

2. MR. SYED TAHER (Counsel for Claimant)
3. MR. MOHAMMED SABEEL (Counsel for Respondent)
4. MR. PREETHAM J REDDY (Counsel for Respondent)

The petition filed by the applicant/claimant under section 23 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996, seeking for various following relief:
 1. To direct the respondent to enforce the contract by performing his part of contract that
bound the parties to making it in the first place.
2. To direct the respondent to refund the advance amount along with interest paid prior by
the repsondent, for the property, to the claimant.
3. The interest amount will however, decrease from 18% p.a. to 10% p.a., due to the
aforementioned concern of the property prices in the said locality increasing by 50%.
4. To direct the respondent to pay an additional ₹10,000 to the claimant as a one-time
payment for the mental distress caused to him.

ISSUE 1: whether the claimant can demonstrate that this Hon’ble Tribunal is authorised to hear
the case and vendor or decision, directing partial performance in accordance with the terms of
the Sale Agreement.

Answer: Partially affirmative.

ISSUE 2: Whether the claimant proves that the respondent is bound to perform his part of the
contract whilst disputing the validity of the reason stated by the claimant for not doing so.

Answer: In the negative.

ISSUE 3: Whether the respondent can prove the reasons he has stated for cancelling the said sale
agreement.

Answer: In the affirmative.

ISSUE 4: Whether the respondent can provide valid justification that he is not obliged to refund
the advance amount, interest at 18% p.a., as well as the penalty amount of ₹1,00,00,000/- to the
claimant.

Answer: Partially affirmative.

Heard and Perused.

The present petition is filed by the claimant under section 23, seeking the aforementioned relief.
The said provision of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 read as under:
 STATEMENTS OF CLAIM AND DEFENCE

1. Within the period of time agreed upon by the parties or determined by the Arbitral
Tribunal, the claimant shall state the fact supporting his claim, the points at issue and the
relief or remedies sought, and the respondent shall state his defence in respect of these
particulars, unless the parties have otherwise agreed as to required elements of those
statements.
2. The parties may submit with their statements all documents they considered to be
important or may add a reference to the documents or other evidence they will submit.
(2A) The respondent, in support of his case, may also submit counterclaim or plead a set-
off, which shall be adjudicated upon the Arbitral Tribunal, if such a counterclaim or set-
off false within the scope of arbitration agreement.

3. Unless otherwise, agreed by the parties, either party may amend or supplement his claim
or defence during the course of the arbitral proceedings, unless the arbitral tribunal
considers it inappropriate to allow the amendment or supplement having regard to the
delay in making it.
4. The statement of claim and defence under this section shall be completed within a period
of six months from the date of arbitrator, as the case may, received notice, in writing, of
their appointment.

From a bare reading of the above quoted provision, it is quite obvious that the relief claimed in
the petition must cover within the ambit of section 23 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The claimant had prayed for directing the respondent to execute the absolute sale deed in order to
enforce the contract and to handover the advance payment for the property as well as the interest
amount that comes along with it.

The said relief claimed by the claimant does come under the scope of Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996. In the case on hand, the petition is to be filed and to be read with clause
10 of the Sale Agreement.

Otherwise, an application had to be filed under clause 10 of the Sale Agreement to which this
tribunal had given sufficient time and directed the claimant to file a necessary application. This
tribunal has no suo moto or the discretionary powers to invoke other procedural laws and to grant
such relief to that effect without being considered or filed by the party.
In a decision reported in K. Bhaskaran v. V.R. Sampath Kumar, 1996 (1 SCC 148); the
Supreme Court of India held that if a seller fails to complete the sale without any fault on the part
of the buyer, the seller is liable to return the advance payment with interest.
In a decision reported in Sathyabama v. Deivanai Ammal, 1993 (2 MLJ 241); the Madras
High Court concluded that when a sale agreement is cancelled due to the sellers fault, the buyer
is entitled to a refund of the advance payment along with interest. The interest is usually
calculated from the date of the advance payment till the date of refund.
In a decision reported in Laxman Tatyaba Kankate v. Taramati Harishchandra Dhatrak,
2010 (7 SCC 717); the Supreme Court reaffirmed that in instances where the seller is unable to
perform the contract due to reasons attributable to them, they must refund the advance payment
with interest to the buyer.

To this effect, I shall proceed to pass the following award.

AWARD

The claimant filed the present petition under section 23 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996 is partially allowed for the aforesaid reasons.the petition appears to be sufficient by the law
governing the jurisdiction of this tribunal.

1. The claimant is directed to accept the refund of advance amount of ₹5,00,00,000 with the
interest of 10% p.a. as well as a one-time compensation amount of ₹10,000.
2. The respondent is directed to refund the advance amount of ₹5,00,00,000 with the
interest in 10% p.a., along with the one-time compensation of ₹10,000.
3. The claimant is directed to handover all the original documents regarding the title of the
suit schedule property to the respondent, which were given to his possession.
4. The claimant is directed to bear the expenses of the proceedings and the expenses
incurred by the respondent to prosecute his defence.

Office to draw award accordingly

(Dictated to this stenographer, transcribed, and typed by her, corrected and initiated by Ms.
Anoushka G and then pronounced in the open court on this 28th day of May, 2024.)
Ms. Anoushka G (Arbitrator)