ORDER This is an Application taken out, under sub-section (6) of Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 read with Para 2(b) of the Scheme framed for appointment of Arbitrators, by the petitioner, who entered into an agreement with the Indian Railways, on 6th May 1992, for carrying out supply and leading of ballast. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that in spite of completion of the entire work, his claims for payment and return of security deposit have not been attended to and hence, he has made a claim for referring the dispute to arbitration. It is not in dispute that the contract has provided for the mechanism of redressal of the disputes that have cropped up between the parties by way of reference to arbitration. 3. Upon notice in the above matter, the respondents have filed their counter. They have taken the plea that the claim is belated and is barred by limitation. Apart from that, it was further pointed out that the arbitration agreement has provided for appointment of an Arbitral Tribunal comprising of three members, who are all senior level railway officials, who will be able to understand the practices and procedures adopted and followed with reference to the standards and manuals settled for the Indian Railways. 4. In have heard Sri K. Someswara Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri C.V. Rajeeva Reddy, learned counsel on behalf of Smt. C.V. Vinitha Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointedly drawn my attention to the averments in the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner, to which, he has enclosed the Arbitration Application, which he has filed before the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad, on 30th April 2004, but however, the same has been returned by the registry and at that stage, the matter has been moved before this Court, in view of the change in the legal position, pursuant to the judgment rendered by a seven-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in S8P and Company v. Patel Engineering'. Therefore, while computing the period of limitation, if any, the fact that the petitioner herein has already approached the Court of the Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad, on 30th April 2004, has got to be taken into account and consideration, as the period during which the proceedings are pursued, in a judicial forum, which otherwise did not have necessary jurisdiction, will not be counted against the petitioner. Viewed from this angle, the claim now made by the petitioner seeking intervention of this Court for appointment of the Arbitrators, cannot be termed as to have been barred by limitation. But however, one has to notice that at page No. 89 of the paper book, the petitioner has made two separate claims, one on the count of loss caused due to inordinate delay of finalizing the agreement and the second, the interest to be paid on all the claim amounts till the date of their actual payment. Claim No.1 has got four separate sub-heads. In the first sub-head, final payment amount for the work executed to a sum of Rs.1 ,27,440/has been claimed. Under second sub-head, repayment of security deposit amount of RS.75,232/- is claimed, but however, it has been realized that the security deposit amount is only in a sum of Rs.72,046/-. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that item 2 of claim No. 1 relating to repayment of security deposit amount should read as Rs. 72,046/- only. Under item 3, interest at the rate of 18% on the aforementioned two amounts has been claimed from 15t October 1996 till the .date of realization. In view of this claim of interest on the above amounts, claim No. 1 amounts to repetition of the same claim of payment of interest. Therefore, claim No.2, as it is, not liable to be referred or adjudicated upon by the Arbitrators. Similarly, under item 4 of claim No.1, the petitioner sought for compensation for legitimate earnings at the rate of 10% lost on account of the delayed payment. 6. Sri C.v. Rajeev Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Smt. C.V. Vinitha Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Indian Railways, has pointed out that this very question has fallen for consideration before a Division Bench in Superintending Engineer v. Kehar Singh, wherein, in paragraph 11, this is how the issue has been concluded. ".. ..11. 6. Sri C.v. Rajeev Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Smt. C.V. Vinitha Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Indian Railways, has pointed out that this very question has fallen for consideration before a Division Bench in Superintending Engineer v. Kehar Singh, wherein, in paragraph 11, this is how the issue has been concluded. ".. ..11. From a perusal of the above section, it is evident that the damages which can be awarded as a result of breach of contract by one of the parties to the other party who suffered by the said breach, is entitled to receive any loss or damage caused to him thereby, which naturally arose in the usual course of things from such breach or which the parties knew when they made the contract to be likely to result from the breach of it. It is specifically made clear that such compensation is not to be given for any remote or indirect loss or damage sustained by reason of the breach. Illustration (n) appended to the said section clearly brings out the difference between the loss which naturally arises out of the contract and the loss which is too remote and cannot be awarded under Section 73." 7. Another Division Bench in M. Venkata Rao v. Union of Indicf3, in paragraph 20, followed the dictum laid down in Kehar Singh's case2 and held that any such claims, which are remote in nature, are not liable to be compensated at all. In view of this settled legal principle, item 4 forming part of claim No. 1 of the applicant herein is not liable to be referred or adjudicated upon by the Arbitral Tribunal. 8. Therefore, the question that remains to be considered is whether, in terms of the contract, the Arbitral Tribunal shall be constituted comprising of the officers of the Indian Railways or not. 9. One of the salient principles, which the Hon'ble Chief Justice's designate should bear in mind, is the requirement of persons with specified knowledge to form part of the Arbitral Tribunal. 9. One of the salient principles, which the Hon'ble Chief Justice's designate should bear in mind, is the requirement of persons with specified knowledge to form part of the Arbitral Tribunal. To the extent possible, such requirements will have to be given effect to, so that the Arbitral Tribunal will be able to quickly understand and appreciate the issues that have fallen for consideration, on either side, and with the knowledge of the procedures and practices followed and adopted, by the Indian Railways, they will be able to resolve the disputes in quick time. The very emphasis being upon quick resolution of the disputes, it will go well in appointment of Railway Officers as the members forming part of the Arbitral Tribunal. 10. The learned counsel for the respondents has placed names of four officers. Of them, Sri Alok Johri, who worked as Chief Workshop Engineer, Sri Anil Kumar, Chief Engineer/Workshop and Floods, Sri V.V. Reddy, Chief Materials Manager are chosen as the Members constituting the Arbitral Tribunal. 11. Accordingly, I appoint Sri Alok Johri, Chief Workshop Engineer, Sri Anil Kumar, Chief Engineer/Workshop and Floods and Sri V.V. Reddy, Chief Materials Manager as the members constituting the Arbitral Tribunal, so that the aforementioned claims of the applicant can be adjudicated by them. 12. I, therefore, direct the 1"1 respondent - General Manager, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad, to intimate the Arbitral Tribunal n:)w constituted to enter upon the reference and adjudicate the claims, duly providing an opportunity to both sides to lead necessary evidence/material. It is open to the Arbitral Tribunal to examine all questions, including the question of limitation of the claims, and take a decision in the matter. 13. With this, Arbitration Application stands allowed. No costs.