[ 34781 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO| 270 0F 2025 Between: M/s Asha Construction, Having its principal place of business at' Navkar - 492099' Parisar, GE Road, Near Shivnith Hyundai, Tatibandh, Raipur Represented by its partner and authorized signatory' Mr' Ajay Jain ...APPlicant AND M/s.NMDCLimited,ACompanylncorporatedUnderCompaniesActl956,A Having Public Sector Company undei Government of lndia enterprise' rejistereO office at Khjnij Bhawan, 1O-3-3'l 1/A, Castle Hills' Masab Tank Hyderabad - 500028 "'Respondent ArbitrationApplicationunderSectionll(5)(6)oftheArbitrationandConciliation Act, 1996 praying that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to: Arbitrator for the purpose of adjudicating the claims and (i) Appoint a Sole dispute between the Applicant and Respondent arising from the agreemenUcontract dated 18 11'2024: and costs of the application (ii) To award the Counsel for the Applicant: Ms. B. Anushka, counsel rePresents Ms. Sheetal Srikanth Counsel for the Respondent: Mr' A. Kranthi Kumar Reddy The Court made the following: ORDER IN'THE IIIGFI COUR'I' FOR THE STATE, OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BI,E THE CH IEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH ARBITRAI'ION APPLICATION No.270 of 2025 DA'I.ED: 12.06.2026 Between: M/s. Asha C onstrttction.

lcp.. bf its Partner and Authorized Signatory, Mr. Ajay Jain. 'l atibandh- I{aipur. Applicant AND M/s. NMDC Lirnited. Masab Tank. ilyderabad Respondent ORDI]R: Heard \,1s. R. Anushka. learned counsel represents Ms. Sheetal Srikanth, tearned counsel tbr the applicant and Mr. A. Kranthi Kumar Reddy, leamed counsel lbr the respondcnt ,) proposed to appoint Ill o|der datcd l7 .01.2026. this Court an Sri Justicc P. Nal een Rao. a [brtrer Acting Chiel' Justice of this CoutI, as independcnt Arbitrator to ad.iudicate the dispute between the parties. The order dated l7 .01.2026 is e xtracted hcreunder lbr easv ref'erence '-Hcard i\'lr i\nkit Singhal. learncd coLttlsel reprcsents Ms. Sheetal Srikanth, learned counscl lbr the applicant and \4r. A. Kranti Kurrar Reddy, learned counsel for tlrc respondent. tlndcr the cortract agreement dated I8.11.2024 for hiring of lnining nrachineries lbl ercaratior of \lasle in South Block deposits of Donimalai Iron Ore Mine (DIOIVI). applrcant-contractor has inroked the arbitration clause 47.2 fbr appointrnenl of an Arbitrator by servrce of notice dated 07.10.2025 upor the 2

respondent. Respondent has not replied to the notice Therefore' the applicant has ,pfit*.n.a this Court for appointment oJ an indePendent arbitrator under Section I I (ij and (6) ofthe Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996' Respondent has entered appearance and filed counter affidavit' Learnedcounselfortherespondentsubmitsthattherespondenthasproposed the names ofthree arbitrators, but the applicant want an independent arbitratol to be appointed bY this Coutt The arbitration clatse 4'1'2 provides for appoirtment of a sole arbitrator' which reads as under:

"All disputes or differences which may arise between the owner and contractorinconnectionwiththisColltract(othelthantl-roseirtrespectof which the decision of any person is expressed in tlle contract to be final and binding) shall, after wiitten notice by either party to the other and to be the Chairmin-curn-Managing"beDirector of the NMDC Ltd ' (who will to the sole ihe appointing authoriry], referred for .adj.udication " Arbitrator to be appointed as lrereinafter provided Respondelt did not deny the cxistence of the^dispute ln that case' the ingredients for invocation of tlre jurisdiction o-f this Couft have beeu made out' 1 2024 for hiring of mining machineries for There is a contract agreement dated l 8 l excavation of waste in South Block deposits of Donimalai lron Ore Mine (DIOM) Limited ln respect of between the applicant/contractor and the respondent'/NMDC ifr" airp"," *hi"h u.or" between the parties, ihe applicant has invoked the arbitratiorr clause'47.2 and approached this Court after service of notice on the respondent on O,l .lO.ZOZS The respondent has ploposed its own set ofthree arbitrators However' since the applicant is not agreeaLle to the names proposed by the respondent' this Clr.t p.opor" to appoint S'i"lustice P Naveen Rao' a former Acting ChiefJustice-of this Court (Resideni of #3001, My Home Bhooja' Block-A' Plot Nos 22-24 e31-33' l1)' as an independent nuyua*gurn, Ranga Reddy Disirict, Mobile No81740123 'Ihe proposed Arbitrator is tl.,e'ai'put" between the parties ;;;i# i; adjud"icate I ) read with und a cleclaration in tenns of Section I 2( ."qr"*"d a su"brnit l.,is "on."nt and Conciliation Act' 1996' Sciledule VI ofthe Arbitration Registry is directed to communicate this order to the proposed Arbitrator' if any' of the The matter be listed after three weeks with the response' proposed Arbitrator."

proposed Arbitrator has subrnitted his consent along with a declaration3. The undersectionl2(1)readwithscheduleVloftheArbitrationandConciliationAct' 1996 (for short, 'the Act') by letter dated 2l'04'2026' J '1. Leamed counsel for the applicant, therefore, submits that appointment of the proposed Arbitrator rnay be confirrred. -5. I, that view of the r-nalter. I hereby appoint Sri Justice p. Naveen Rao, a Ibrmer Acting chief Justice of this court (Resident of #3001, My Home Bhooja, Block-A, Plot Nos.22-2:1 & 31-33, Rayadurgarr, Ranga Reddy District, Mobile No.8374012311), to act as an independent Arbitrator in respect of the dispute between the parties. 6. Registry is directed to serve a xerox copy of the entire pleadings to the learned -['he Arbitrator. Ieamed Arbitrator is requested to keep in mind the fee prescribed in Schedule IV ol the Act and the rin-re lirnit prescribed under section 29A of the Act. 1. The Arbitration Application is, accordingly, disposed of. Miscellaneous applications pending. ifany, shall stand closed. SD/- K.SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// C SECTION OFFICER To, 1 Sri Justice P. Naveen Rao, Former Acting Chief Justice, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad (Resident of #300'1 , My Home Bhooja, Block-A, Plot Nos.22-24 & 31-33, Rayadurgam, Ranga Reddy District, Mobile No 83740'12311) (By Special Messenger)(Along with a Copy of affidavit and material papers)

2. The Section Officer, O.S.Section, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. 3. One CC to Ms. Sheetal Srikanth, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Mr A. Kranthi Kumar Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies KAM/KA q. HIGH COURT DATED: 1210612026 ORDER ARBAPPL.No.27O of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE ARBITRATION APPLICATION + "uQ(d&-'

[ 34781 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO| 270 0F 2025 Between: M/s Asha Construction, Having its principal place of business at' Navkar - 492099' Parisar, GE Road, Near Shivnith Hyundai, Tatibandh, Raipur Represented by its partner and authorized signatory' Mr' Ajay Jain ...APPlicant AND M/s.NMDCLimited,ACompanylncorporatedUnderCompaniesActl956,A Having Public Sector Company undei Government of lndia enterprise' rejistereO office at Khjnij Bhawan, 1O-3-3'l 1/A, Castle Hills' Masab Tank Hyderabad - 500028 "'Respondent ArbitrationApplicationunderSectionll(5)(6)oftheArbitrationandConciliation Act, 1996 praying that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to: Arbitrator for the purpose of adjudicating the claims and (i) Appoint a Sole dispute between the Applicant and Respondent arising from the agreemenUcontract dated 18 11'2024: and costs of the application (ii) To award the Counsel for the Applicant: Ms. B. Anushka, counsel rePresents Ms. Sheetal Srikanth Counsel for the Respondent: Mr' A. Kranthi Kumar Reddy The Court made the following: ORDER IN'THE IIIGFI COUR'I' FOR THE STATE, OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BI,E THE CH IEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH ARBITRAI'ION APPLICATION No.270 of 2025 DA'I.ED: 12.06.2026 Between: M/s. Asha C onstrttction.

lcp.. bf its Partner and Authorized Signatory, Mr. Ajay Jain. 'l atibandh- I{aipur. Applicant AND M/s. NMDC Lirnited. Masab Tank. ilyderabad Respondent ORDI]R: Heard \,1s. R. Anushka. learned counsel represents Ms. Sheetal Srikanth, tearned counsel tbr the applicant and Mr. A. Kranthi Kumar Reddy, leamed counsel lbr the respondcnt ,) proposed to appoint Ill o|der datcd l7 .01.2026. this Court an Sri Justicc P. Nal een Rao. a [brtrer Acting Chiel' Justice of this CoutI, as independcnt Arbitrator to ad.iudicate the dispute between the parties. The order dated l7 .01.2026 is e xtracted hcreunder lbr easv ref'erence '-Hcard i\'lr i\nkit Singhal. learncd coLttlsel reprcsents Ms. Sheetal Srikanth, learned counscl lbr the applicant and \4r. A. Kranti Kurrar Reddy, learned counsel for tlrc respondent. tlndcr the cortract agreement dated I8.11.2024 for hiring of lnining nrachineries lbl ercaratior of \lasle in South Block deposits of Donimalai Iron Ore Mine (DIOIVI). applrcant-contractor has inroked the arbitration clause 47.2 fbr appointrnenl of an Arbitrator by servrce of notice dated 07.10.2025 upor the 2

respondent. Respondent has not replied to the notice Therefore' the applicant has ,pfit*.n.a this Court for appointment oJ an indePendent arbitrator under Section I I (ij and (6) ofthe Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996' Respondent has entered appearance and filed counter affidavit' Learnedcounselfortherespondentsubmitsthattherespondenthasproposed the names ofthree arbitrators, but the applicant want an independent arbitratol to be appointed bY this Coutt The arbitration clatse 4'1'2 provides for appoirtment of a sole arbitrator' which reads as under:

"All disputes or differences which may arise between the owner and contractorinconnectionwiththisColltract(othelthantl-roseirtrespectof which the decision of any person is expressed in tlle contract to be final and binding) shall, after wiitten notice by either party to the other and to be the Chairmin-curn-Managing"beDirector of the NMDC Ltd ' (who will to the sole ihe appointing authoriry], referred for .adj.udication " Arbitrator to be appointed as lrereinafter provided Respondelt did not deny the cxistence of the^dispute ln that case' the ingredients for invocation of tlre jurisdiction o-f this Couft have beeu made out' 1 2024 for hiring of mining machineries for There is a contract agreement dated l 8 l excavation of waste in South Block deposits of Donimalai lron Ore Mine (DIOM) Limited ln respect of between the applicant/contractor and the respondent'/NMDC ifr" airp"," *hi"h u.or" between the parties, ihe applicant has invoked the arbitratiorr clause'47.2 and approached this Court after service of notice on the respondent on O,l .lO.ZOZS The respondent has ploposed its own set ofthree arbitrators However' since the applicant is not agreeaLle to the names proposed by the respondent' this Clr.t p.opor" to appoint S'i"lustice P Naveen Rao' a former Acting ChiefJustice-of this Court (Resideni of #3001, My Home Bhooja' Block-A' Plot Nos 22-24 e31-33' l1)' as an independent nuyua*gurn, Ranga Reddy Disirict, Mobile No81740123 'Ihe proposed Arbitrator is tl.,e'ai'put" between the parties ;;;i# i; adjud"icate I ) read with und a cleclaration in tenns of Section I 2( ."qr"*"d a su"brnit l.,is "on."nt and Conciliation Act' 1996' Sciledule VI ofthe Arbitration Registry is directed to communicate this order to the proposed Arbitrator' if any' of the The matter be listed after three weeks with the response' proposed Arbitrator."

proposed Arbitrator has subrnitted his consent along with a declaration3. The undersectionl2(1)readwithscheduleVloftheArbitrationandConciliationAct' 1996 (for short, 'the Act') by letter dated 2l'04'2026' J '1. Leamed counsel for the applicant, therefore, submits that appointment of the proposed Arbitrator rnay be confirrred. -5. I, that view of the r-nalter. I hereby appoint Sri Justice p. Naveen Rao, a Ibrmer Acting chief Justice of this court (Resident of #3001, My Home Bhooja, Block-A, Plot Nos.22-2:1 & 31-33, Rayadurgarr, Ranga Reddy District, Mobile No.8374012311), to act as an independent Arbitrator in respect of the dispute between the parties. 6. Registry is directed to serve a xerox copy of the entire pleadings to the learned -['he Arbitrator. Ieamed Arbitrator is requested to keep in mind the fee prescribed in Schedule IV ol the Act and the rin-re lirnit prescribed under section 29A of the Act. 1. The Arbitration Application is, accordingly, disposed of. Miscellaneous applications pending. ifany, shall stand closed. SD/- K.SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// C SECTION OFFICER To, 1 Sri Justice P. Naveen Rao, Former Acting Chief Justice, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad (Resident of #300'1 , My Home Bhooja, Block-A, Plot Nos.22-24 & 31-33, Rayadurgam, Ranga Reddy District, Mobile No 83740'12311) (By Special Messenger)(Along with a Copy of affidavit and material papers)

2. The Section Officer, O.S.Section, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. 3. One CC to Ms. Sheetal Srikanth, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Mr A. Kranthi Kumar Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies KAM/KA q. HIGH COURT DATED: 1210612026 ORDER ARBAPPL.No.27O of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE ARBITRATION APPLICATION + "uQ(d&-'