JUDGMENT : The respondents have filed their objections to the present Application. 2. The applicant has preferred the present Application, under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to seek an appointment of the Arbitrator to adjudicate the claims of the applicant arising out of their Agreement for supply of electrical energy by the respondents to the applicant. 3. The agreement was entered into between the parties on 31.05.2000. The parties entered into a fresh agreement thereafter on 22.08.2022. The Agreement dated 22.08.2022 contains an arbitration clause in Clause-25, which provides that any question or difference whatsoever which arises between the parties under the said Agreement, unless the procedure for settling the same is laid down by the Electricity Act, 2003, shall be referred to arbitration. 4. The applicant invoked the Arbitration Agreement on 14.11.2022. However, the parties could not mutually appoint an Arbitrator. Consequently, this Application has been preferred. 5. The submission of Mr. Barthwal, learned counsel for the respondents, is firstly that the procedure for settlement of the applicant’s claim is laid down in Section 42(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003. The said provision states that every distribution licensee-which the respondent is, shall, within six months from the appointed date or date of grant of licence, whichever is earlier, establish a forum for redressal of grievances of the consumers in accordance with the guidelines as may be specified by the State Commission. 6. I do not find any merit in this submission of Mr. Barthwal, since Section 42(5) of the aforesaid Act only talks about establishment of a Grievance Redressal Forum which is a non-adjudicatory process. 7. The applicant has already raised its grievance, while, inter alia, invoking the Arbitration Agreement, and the same has not been redressed. 8. The Grievance Redressal Forum is not a substitute for an adjudicatory process. This submission of Mr. Barthwal is, therefore, rejected. 9. Mr. Barthwal further submits that an Arbitral Tribunal was already constituted, since disputes arose between the parties earlier as well. 10. Mr. V.K. Kohli, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant, submits that the earlier Arbitral Tribunal had already rendered its award, which was already put to challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The award was in favour of the applicant and has been upheld with dismissal of the objections. 10. Mr. V.K. Kohli, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant, submits that the earlier Arbitral Tribunal had already rendered its award, which was already put to challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The award was in favour of the applicant and has been upheld with dismissal of the objections. The disputes now raised by the applicant are not covered by the earlier Arbitration. 11. Mr. Barthwal submits that the disputes now raised could have been and ought to have been raised when the Arbitration Agreement was invoked. However, the applicant failed to do so. 12. In my view, this is an aspect which would squarely fall for the Arbitral Tribunal to consider. 13. Since the parties have entered into an Agreement for supply of electrical energy which contains an arbitration clause, and the applicant has invoked the said Agreement and has raised these claims, in my view, the present Application is liable to be allowed. 14. Accordingly, I appoint Mr. Justice R.K. Gauba (Retd.), Delhi High Court, R/o D-66 (Second Floor), Panchsheel Enclave, New Delhi (Mobile No. 9650411919) to act as a sole Arbitrator to adjudicate all disputes, claims and counter-claims between the parties, arising out of the aforesaid Agreement. 15. The parties are agreeable to appointment of the sole Arbitrator from outside the State on the understanding that the proceedings would be held virtually and may be held physically only when necessary so as to save the costs. 16. The Application stands disposed of.