JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. - Through, the instant petition, the petitioner seeks appointment, of, an Arbitrator. 2. The works, appertaining, to, Four Laning of Kiratpur Ner-Chowk Section of NH-21 (From km 21.55 to Km 154.00), stood, allotted to the petitioner company, by, the respondent company. The petitioner avers, qua, despite his completely executing, the, awarded works, and, despite his satisfactorily, and, completely executing the awarded works, the respondent company, rather not liquidating, vis-a-vis, it, the entire payments in respect thereof, (i) thereupon, the petitioner contends, that, within the ambit, of, the apposite arbitration clause 62, contained in the Standard Condition of Sub contract/Work Order, clause whereof stands extracted hereinafter, an apt contractual dispute emerging or arising, vis-a-vis, the respective contractual obligations, of, the parties at contest, (ii) and, thereupon it being referable, for, arbitration, and, concomitantly, an, Arbitrator being enjoined to be appointed by this Court, for, his hence being entailed, to, embark, upon, arbitration proceedings. "62. Settlement of Disputes If a dispute of any kind whatsoever arises between the Contractor and the Subcontractor in connection with, or arising out of, the execution of the subcontract, whether during the execution of the subcontract or after its completion and whether before or after repudiation or other termination of the subcontract, then the Contractor or Subcontractor may give a notice of such dispute to the other party, in which case the parties shall attempt for the next 21 days to settle such dispute amicably before the commencement of conciliation/arbitration. Such notice shall state that it is made pursuant to this clause. Any dispute which has not been amicably settled within 21 days after the day on which such notice is given shall be settled by conciliation as per Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Both the Contractor and Subcontractor shall agree for appointment of sole conciliator to settle the dispute. Any dispute referred to conciliation which has not been settled by conciliation within 30 days from the date of reference of such dispute or such other period as mutually agreed by the parties, shall be finally settled in accordance with the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 by way of Arbitration and this behalf a Sole Arbitrator to be nominated and appointed by the Chief Executive Officer of Contractor. The Arbitration may be commenced prior to or after completion of the Works, provided that the obligations of the Contractor and Subcontractor shall not be altered by reason of the arbitration being conducted during the progress of the Works. The venue of the Arbitration proceedings shall take place at Hyderabad and the language of proceedings that of documents and communications shall be English. The Arbitration shall furnish reasoned award in writing. The award of the Arbitrator shall be final and binding on both the Contractor and subcontractor." 2. The nerve centre of the propagation, of, the petitioner company, (a) is, harboured upon the respondent company deducting sums of money, respectively, borne in Rs. 1,16,074/- and Rs. 1,21,696/-, and, the apt deductions appertaining to TDS, and, concomitantly, towards, the apposite tax liability accruing, upon, the bills for payment, as, purportedly forwarded by the petitioner, to, the respondent company, (b) and despite the bills, rather appertaining to the awarded works, works whereof, though, standing, satisfactorily and completely executed, theirs remaining neither cleared nor payments in respect thereof being liquidated, (c) thereupon, it is concomitantly espoused, that, the respondent company has abysmally failed to liquidate, vis-a-vis, the petitioner company, the entire pecuniary liabilities accruing qua it, and, as arise out of the contractual works executed by it. 3. However, the learned counsel appearing, for the respondent company, has, made, a, vociferous submission before this Court, (a) that with portrayals standing embodied in the "no dues declaration", borne in Annexure R-4, qua the respondent company, fully and finally settling, its entire contractual liabilities, vis-a-vis, it, (b) and, also with the aforesaid embodiments, being, supported by the table occurring underneath paragraph No.2, of, the Sur-rejoinder instituted by the respondent company, to, the petitioner''s application, (c) hence, the respondent company, contends that the aforesaid portrayals, rather make, apt evincings qua the respondent company, completely and satisfactorily, discharging, all the apt pecuniary contractual liability(ies), encumbered upon it, (d) and, thereupon, there existing neither any dispute nor the apt arbitration clause being invocable, by the petitioner. In making the aforesaid submission, the learned counsel appearing, for the respondent has placed reliance upon a verdict, of, the Hon''ble Apex Court, rendered in a case titled as National Insurance Company Limited vs. Boghara Polyfab Private Limited , (2009) 1 SCC 267 , the relevant paragraphs No. 36 to 42 whereof are extracted hereinafter:- "38. In making the aforesaid submission, the learned counsel appearing, for the respondent has placed reliance upon a verdict, of, the Hon''ble Apex Court, rendered in a case titled as National Insurance Company Limited vs. Boghara Polyfab Private Limited , (2009) 1 SCC 267 , the relevant paragraphs No. 36 to 42 whereof are extracted hereinafter:- "38. In Union of India v. L. K. Ahuja & Co. , (1988) 3 SCC 76 , this Court observed : "In order to be entitled to ask for a reference under section 20 of the Act, there must be an entitlement to money and a difference or dispute in respect of the same. It is true that on completion of the work, right to get payment would normally arise and it is also true that on settlement of the final bill, the right to get further payment gets weakened but the claim subsists and whether it does subsist, is a matter which is arbitrable." There was no full and final discharge or accord and satisfaction in that case. 39. In Jayesh Engineering Works vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. , (2000) 10 SCC 178 , there was an acknowledgment by the contractor that he had received the amount in full and final settlement and he has no further claim. This Court following L. K. Ahuja held that whether the contract has been fully worked out and whether the payments have been made in full and final settlement are questions to be considered by the arbitrator when there is a dispute regarding the validity of such acknowledgement and that the arbitrator will consider whether any amount is due to be paid and how far the claim made by the contractor is tenable. Jayesh Engineering Works did not refer to Kishorilal Gupta , (1959) AIR SC 1362, Nav Bharat Builders , (1994) Supp3 SCC 83, P. K. Ramaiah , (1994) Supp3 SCC 126, or Nathani Steels , (1995) Supp3 SCC 324. 40. In Reshmi Constructions , (2004) 2 SCC 663 , the employer prepared a final bill and forwarded the same along with a ''NoDemand Certificate'' in printed format confirming that it had no claims. The contractor signed the no-demand certificate and submitted it. 40. In Reshmi Constructions , (2004) 2 SCC 663 , the employer prepared a final bill and forwarded the same along with a ''NoDemand Certificate'' in printed format confirming that it had no claims. The contractor signed the no-demand certificate and submitted it. But on the same day, the contractor also wrote a letter to the employer stating that it had issued the said certificate in view of a threat that until the said document was executed, payment of the bill will not be released. In those circumstances, after considering P. K. Ramaiah and Nathani Steels, this Court held : "26. ... The conduct of the parties as evidenced in their letters, as noticed hereinbefore, clearly goes to show that not only the final bill submitted by the respondent was rejected but another final bill was prepared with a printed format that a "No-Demand Certificate" has been executed as otherwise the final bill would not be paid. The respondent herein, as noticed hereinbefore, categorically stated in its letter dated 20.12.1990 as to under what circumstances they were compelled to sign the said printed letter. It appears from the appendix appended to the judgment of the learned trial Judge that the said letter was filed even before the trial court. It is, therefore, not a case whether the respondent''s assertion of "under influence or coercion" can be said to have been taken by way of an afterthought. 27. Even when rights and obligations of the parties are worked out, the contract does not come to an end inter alia for the purpose of determination of the disputes arising thereunder, and, thus, the arbitration agreement can be invoked. Although it may not be strictly in place but we cannot shut our eyes to the ground reality that in a case where a contractor has made huge investments, he cannot afford not to take from the employer the amount under the bills, for various reasons which may include discharge of his liability towards the banks, financial institutions and other persons. In such a situation, the public sector undertakings would have an upper hand. They would not ordinarily release the money unless a "No-Demand Certificate" is signed. Each case, therefore, is required to be considered on its own facts. 28. Further, necessitas non habet legem is an age-old maxim which means necessity knows no law. In such a situation, the public sector undertakings would have an upper hand. They would not ordinarily release the money unless a "No-Demand Certificate" is signed. Each case, therefore, is required to be considered on its own facts. 28. Further, necessitas non habet legem is an age-old maxim which means necessity knows no law. A person may sometimes have to succumb to the pressure of the other party to the bargain who is in a stronger position. 29. We may, however, hasten to add that such a case has to be made out and proved before the arbitrator for obtaining an award." This decision dealt with a case where there was some justification for the contention of the contractor that the ''Nodemand Certificate'' was not given voluntarily but under coercion, and on facts, this Court felt that the question required to be examined. 41. In Ambica Constructions , (2006) 13 SCC 475, this Court considered a clause in the contract which required the contractor to give a no claim certificate in the form required by Railways after the final measurement is taken and provided that the contractor shall be debarred from disputing the correctness of the items covered by ''No claim certificate'' or demanding a reference to arbitration in respect thereof. There was some material to show that the certificate was given under coercion and duress. This Court following Reshmi Constructions, observed that such a clause in contract would not be an absolute bar to a contractor raising claims which were genuine, even after submission of a no-claim certificate. 42. We thus find that the cases referred fall under two categories. The cases relied on by the appellant are of one category where the court after considering the facts, found that there was a full and final settlement resulting in accord and satisfaction, and there was no substance in the allegations of coercion/ undue influence. Consequently, this Court held that there could be no reference of any dispute to arbitration. The decisions in Nav Bharat and Nathani Steels are cases falling under this category where there were bilateral negotiated settlements of pending disputes, such settlements having been reduced to writing either in the presence of witnesses or otherwise. P. K. Ramaiah is a case where the contract was performed and there was a full and final settlement and satisfaction resulting in discharge of the contract. P. K. Ramaiah is a case where the contract was performed and there was a full and final settlement and satisfaction resulting in discharge of the contract. It also falls under this category." 4. Be that as it may, the aforesaid reliance placed by the counsel for the respondent company, upon, Annexure R-4, and, the consequential thereto applicability thereon, of the mandate, of, the Hon''ble Apex Court rendered in Boghara Ployfab''s case , (a) is, to be juxtaposed, vis-a-vis, TDS deductions, made, towards, the income tax liability, as, accruing upon the deductee, hence appertaining, or not appertaining, vis-avis, the apt consonance therewith purported payments made to the petitioner company, (b) besides hence the apposite discharging acquiescence, of, the petitioner company, unfolded by Annexure R-4, rather carrying or not carrying any worth, (c), for hence reiteratedly meteing, a, befitting verdict qua the apt TDS deductions, in, the sums aforestated, even when as espoused, by the counsel for the petitioner, qua theirs, rather remaining unpreceded, by any clearance of bills forwarded, by it, to the respondent company, nor payments thereunder standing liquidated, vis-a-vis, it, rather hence reiteratedly thereupon, the respondent company, withholding, the contractual sums of money, in respect of contractual works, completely and satisfactorily executed by it. (d) AND, hence a contractual dispute amenable for reference, for, arbitration, hence, emerging, (e) conspicuously reiteratedly also qua the TDS deduction(s), rather belittling or not, the worth of, the, apposite discharging acquiescence. 5. For determining the comparative worth, of, the aforestated respective contentions addressed, before this Court, by the learned counsel appearing, for the parties, (a) initially, it has to be determined, whether, the respondent company, has meted, good, sound and tangible explanations, vis-a-vis, the apt TDS deductions. (b) Tangible explanation, in respect thereto, do purportedly emanate, from, a reading, of, clause (e), of, paragraph No.3 of its reply, furnished to the apposite petition, (c) wherein, echoings occur, qua the aforesaid deductions, being statutory deductions, and, the aforesaid appertaining to the bills raised, on anvil of primary measurements, and, the aforesaid arrangements, being to the knowledge, and, awareness of the petitioner company, (d) hence, the petitioner not demanding payments in respect, of the bills, qua wherewith, the, apposite TDS, deductions were made. Consequently, also when, a, no due certificate/ declaration, borne in Annexure R-4, was tendered by the petitioner company, thereupon, the import, if any, of TDS deductions being insignificant, nor theirs working, vis-avis, the, petitioner''s espousal. 6. Before proceeding to adjudicate, upon, the aforestated comparative merits, of, the respective espousals, addressed,before this Court, by the learned counsel appearing for the parties at contest, it is also significant to bear in mind, that, the judgment cited by the learned counsel appearing, for the respondent company, rendered, by the Hon''ble Bombay High Court, in a case titled as S.P. Brothers, A partnership Firm vs. Biren Ramesh Kadalia, decided on 27th March, 2008, the relevant portion of paragraph No.8 whereof stands extracted hereinafter: "8....The issuance of TDS certificates does not amount to an acknowledgement of defendant within the meaning of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act and the Full Bench Judgment of this Court in case of Jyotsna , puts the matter beyond doubt. The TDS certificate is primarily to acknowledge the deduction of tax at source. The certificate does not refer to any amount of loan or even the rate of interest which is payable on the said principal amount. It does not refer to any contract between the parties and even a transaction. When a written contract is produced before the Court, its contents are the best evidence......" rather with clarity expounds therein, (i) that the mere issuance of TDS certificate, not, amounting to any apt contractual acknowledgement(s), within, the domain of Section 25, of, the Indian Evidence Act, and, its issuance and preparation, is, a pointer, merely, vis-a-vis, the simplicitor acknowledgement, of deduction, of, tax at source, unless, it is assuredly proven by the relevant contract, being, hence placed on record, and, its being also proven qua it appertaining to a contractual transaction. The aforesaid trite expostulation carried thereunder, does rather, shatter the submission of the learned counsel, appearing for the respondent company herein, qua ipso facto, any TDS deduction, when conjoined with, a, no due certificate, rather with aplomb putting at rest, the res controversia, vis-a-vis, any contractual liability, still warranting liquidation, by the respondent company, vis-a-vis, the petitioner. The aforesaid trite expostulation carried thereunder, does rather, shatter the submission of the learned counsel, appearing for the respondent company herein, qua ipso facto, any TDS deduction, when conjoined with, a, no due certificate, rather with aplomb putting at rest, the res controversia, vis-a-vis, any contractual liability, still warranting liquidation, by the respondent company, vis-a-vis, the petitioner. Even otherwise, the aforesaid TDS deduction, were, enjoined to be supported, by transmission, of, bills by the petitioner company, to the respondent company, and, also prima facie material, at this stage, was, enjoined to be adduced, with, trite clear pronouncements borne therein, qua in contemporaneity, vis-a-vis, the clearance of the bills, the apt TDS deductions standing meted thereon. However, the apposite no dues certificate, executed, by the authorised signatory of the petitioner company, rather stood executed, on 27.09.2014, whereas, the apt TDS deductions imminently occurred subsequent thereto, on 3.10.2010, (I) hence, apparently, the force of the aforesaid necessity, of, the respondent company, comprised in its, being enjoined to adduce material, in display, qua in contemporaneity, of, the apposite TDS deductions, qua thereat, the relevant bills of the petitioner company also being cleared, rather acquires immense galvanised fillip, (ii) whereas, with the aforestated material, rather remaining unadduced, thereupon, it is to be concluded, that, prima facie, the respondent company, despite, the petitioner company purportedly transmiting bills to it for clearance, the latter withholding payments thereon, more so, with the apposite explanation appertaining to deductions, omits to unveil, the, aforesaid factum, (iii) and, concomitantly, the petitioner company, does gather ground, to make a submission, that, some bills, dehors Annexure R-4, yet remaining uncleared, and, hence, the relevant arbitration clause being invocable at its instance, for, hence the emerging contractual dispute being referred, to, an Arbitrator. 7. Even otherwise, the aforestated, reliance upon judgment supra , is misplaced, as, visibly, it does not appertain to a arbitration case, rather it appertains, to, a summary suit. The learned counsel for the respondent company, placed reliance upon judgment rendered by the Income Tax Appellate TRibunal Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench in a case titled as Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -3(3), Yderabad vs. M/s Zelan Projects Pvt. Ltd., bearing ITA No. 946/Hyd/2012, on 12th June, 2015, the relevant portion of paragraph No.6 whereof stand extracted hereinafter:- "6. The learned counsel for the respondent company, placed reliance upon judgment rendered by the Income Tax Appellate TRibunal Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench in a case titled as Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -3(3), Yderabad vs. M/s Zelan Projects Pvt. Ltd., bearing ITA No. 946/Hyd/2012, on 12th June, 2015, the relevant portion of paragraph No.6 whereof stand extracted hereinafter:- "6. We have considered the submission of the parties and perused the orders of the revenue authorities as well as other material on record. As can be seen, only on the basis of TDS certificate enclosed by assessee in the return of income, AO has concluded that the amount received by assessee from LAPPL is a contract receipt and accordingly proceeded to estimate the income. However, as can be seen from the terms of the relevant agreement between assessee and LAPPL, assessee is to receive 15% of the total contract amount as mobilization advance. Though, it may be a fact that in the TDS certificate, deductee has mentioned it as payment towards professional charges but, that itself is not conclusive enough to prove the fact that amount received was not advance but towards work executed. Assessee has also through documentary evidence demonstrated that during the relevant FY it has not raised any bills on the contractee towards contract work entrusted to it, but, has stated raising bills in next FY after completion of the contract work and has also recognized income accordingly in the said FY. These facts have not been controverted by the Ld. DR." However, any reliance placed thereon, is, also misfounded (i) given any TDS deduction, by, a, deductee, being expounded therein, rather to hence not comprise any conclusive proof, qua, the deductions being towards works performed, (ii) unless, apt best documentary evidence, was adduced, with, clear demonstration, comprised in the raising of bills, and, apt clearance(s) thereof occurring, in, contemporaneity, vis-a-vis the apt TDS deduction, whereupon, the apt deductions, would stand validation. In other words, the raising of bills, and, clearance(s) thereof, by the deductee, is, imperative, significantly, in contemporaneity, vis-a-vis, the apt deduction(s). In other words, the raising of bills, and, clearance(s) thereof, by the deductee, is, imperative, significantly, in contemporaneity, vis-a-vis, the apt deduction(s). However, hereat, with, the date of execution of Annexure P-4, being evidently prior to the date of the apt TDS deduction, nor when the bills in respect whereof, the purported deductions were made, standing adduced into evidence, whereas, their adduction into evidence is imperative, for, drawing conclusions leaning towards, the respondent, (iii) thereupon, it prima facie, appears that the apt TDS deductions were, made subsequent to preparation and execution of Annexure R-4, (iv) hence giving leeway to an inference, that, though some bills were transmitted, by the petitioner company, to the respondent company, yet despite theirs being uncleared, and, also despite, payments comprised therein remaining unliquidated, by, the respondent company, to the petitioner company, TDS deductions being made, whereupon hence a contractual dispute inter se them, rather surfacing. 8. In summa, the admissions of the petitioner company, as, borne in Annexure R-4, and, theirs purportedly comprising, the apt satisfactory acquiescing discharge, by the respondent, vis-a-vis, it, of, hence all contractual liabilities, emanating from, the apt contract executed inter se both, (I) and, hence no subsisting contractual dispute, rather arising or existing, are, both misplaced and mis-founded, (ii) rather it is to be concluded, that, a subsisting contractual, dispute, arising, and, it being referable to arbitration, within, the ambit of the apposite arbitration clause. 9. Nowat, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent company has with much force, made, a vigorous contention, before, this Court that, with, an apt pre-arbitration mechanism, being contemplated in the arbitration clause, hence, unless the pre-arbitration mechanism, is, resorted to, thereupon, the present petition being premature, hence warranting its dismissal. However, even the aforesaid submission is misfounded, as it has been, with, aplomb pronounced by the Hon''ble Apex Court, in a judgment reported in a case titled as Demerara Distillers Pvt. Limited vs. Demerara Distiller Limited , (2015) 13 SCC 610 , qua, the relegating, of, parties to any pre-arbitral mechanism, being an empty formality, and, resort thereto, being not mandatory. 10. For the foregoing reasons, the instant petition is allowed. Consequently, Mr. B.C. Negi, Senior Advocate is appointed as the sole Arbitrator. All the disputes including disputes raised in the instant petition are hereby referred to the learned sole arbitrator. The Arbitration proceedings shall held at Hyderabad. 10. For the foregoing reasons, the instant petition is allowed. Consequently, Mr. B.C. Negi, Senior Advocate is appointed as the sole Arbitrator. All the disputes including disputes raised in the instant petition are hereby referred to the learned sole arbitrator. The Arbitration proceedings shall held at Hyderabad. The learned Arbitrator shall be at liberty to fix his own fees/remuneration/other conditions and consultation with the parties. All the expenses in regard to the arbitration proceedings shall be jointly shared by the litigating parties, in equal share. This order be communicated to the learned arbitrator so that the arbitration proceedings can commence and conclude as expeditiously as possible.