ORDER : Ramesh Sinha, J. 1. This is an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Act of 1996) for appointment of an arbitrator. 2. Heard Mr. Kavish Nair and Ms. Vidula Mehrotra, (through Video Conferencing) and Mr. Krishna Tandon, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned Deputy Solicitor General for the respondent No. 1 as well as Mr. Vikram Sharma, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the State/respondents No. 2 to 4. 3. Mr. Kavish Nair, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is constrained to file the present application on account of the failure of the non-applicants to nominate and/or approve to concur with the request of the applicant for the appointment of Arbitrator; in terms of Clause 8 of the Memorandum of Understanding (for short, the MoU) executed between the parties dated 27.09.2019 for adjudicating upon the disputes between the them within the statutory period of thirty days. 4. Mr. Nair submits that the Government of India, Ministry of Rural Development (MoRD) has been implementing the Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Grameen Kaushalya Yojana (herein referred to as DDU-GKY) for skill development of rural youths and their gainful employment since the year 2014. DDU-GKY is part of National Rural Livelihood Mission (NRLM) and this project is designed to be implemented by way of Public Private Partnership mode with the help of Project Implementation Agency (for short, the PIA). The main objective of this project is to focus on rural youth in the age group of 15 to 35 who belong to poor families and consequently help them get placed in gainful employment to earn their Livelihoods. Thus it is a very important and ambitious flagship programme launched by Government of India and implemented through the State Rural Livelihoods Mission (for short, the SRLM). For the purpose of implementation of the project detailed guidelines have been issued by Government of India in the form of Standard operating Procedures (for short, the SOP) and quality assurance framework comprising of minimum benchmarks. The project has adopted the Time Tested ERP system and financial transactions are being monitored through the public financial management system (PFM) which has been designed for tracking the fund utilization by the PIA. The applicant has been awarded two projects to be implemented in the State of Chhattisgarh and another project in the State of Bihar. The project has adopted the Time Tested ERP system and financial transactions are being monitored through the public financial management system (PFM) which has been designed for tracking the fund utilization by the PIA. The applicant has been awarded two projects to be implemented in the State of Chhattisgarh and another project in the State of Bihar. As per the sanction orders, the applicant had to implement two projects in State of Chhattisgarh, one project is DDU-GKY project bearing Project Code CH2018RT2305820190410CG1010986 (for short the DDU-GKY) and another project bearing Project Code CH2018RT 2305820190410CG1010973 (for short, ROSHNI). The DDU-GKY covers rural areas namely Dhamtari, Mahasamund, Durg, Baloda Bazar Districts where as the ROSHNI project covers tribal areas like Kanker, Narayanpur, and Balrampur Districts, which are naxal affected districts. The non-applicant No. 2 approved the application submitted by the applicant and therefore, on 11.09.2019 two sanction letters were issued by them in favour of the applicant by the Development Commissioner, Chhattisgarh State Rural Livelihod Mission (DDU-GKY Cell) Raipur. From perusal of the said order, it is clear that the proposed skill development training is residential and training centre shall be located at Raipur and the trades for which the training is to be imparted are given in the chart which indlude three sectors namely IT-ITES, Electronic and hardware and capital goods for DDU-GKY project and Electronics and hardware, logistics and IT-ITES for ROSHNI project, respectively. The total duration of both the projects are 36 months. Two separate bank guarantees dated 18.09.2019 amounting to Rs. 74,70,000/- and 80,03,000/- were submitted by the applicant in favour of the Chattisgarh Gramin Aajeevika Samvardhan Samiti for both the projects DDU-GKY and ROSHNI, respectively. Soon after submission of the Bank Guarantees, MoU was signed between Chhattisgarh State Rural Livelihoods Mission (CGSRLM) and the applicant. Clause 9 of the MoU provides for Force Majure clause, which reads as under: "9. Force majeure 9.1 No failure or omission by any of the parties to perform any of the terms and conditions under this memorandum of understanding shall give rise to any claim against such party or be deemed breach of this memorandum of understanding if such failure or omission arise from an act of god, war or military operations, national or local emergency, natural disaster (fire, lightning, flood or such similar disasters) or any other reason which lies outside the control of the parties.” 5. Mr. Mr. Nair further submits that clause 10 which deals with validity of MoU says that MoU shall come into force on 27/11/2019 and shall be valid for entire life cycle of the project i.e. for 870 candidates for 36 months in case of DDUGKY project and 944 candidates for 36 months in case of ROSHNI project. Clause 12 of the MoU deals with termination. 6. However, the MoU has not yet been terminated by either of the parties. On 06.11.2019 the non-applicant No.3 issued a project commencement order apart from other things, the following is also mentioned in the project commencement order "the project shall be deemed to have commenced from 10/11/2019, the training and placement shall be completed within 3 years and 0 months from the completion date 09/11/2022 unless further extension orders are issued by the Chhattisgarh State Rural Livelihoods Mission (CGSRLM)" all training and placement should be completed by this date. The project shall be closed within 14 months from project completion date and no training and placement activities shall be carried out during these 14 months. It is submitted that pursuance to the sanction orders and the MoU the applicant with all sincerity completed the requisite preparatory arrangements to impart the necessary skill development training by hiring a huge residential accommodation on rent and preparation for lodging and boarding and engagement of instructors to impart the required skill training etc. including renting of required furniture, computers and other hardware and software materials as per the SOP's guidelines issued by non-applicants. The expenditure incurred under the above heads were duly notified to the non-applicants each month through the duly audited accounts prepared by the recognized/ authorized Chartered Accountant for this purpose. 7. Mr. Nair further submits that the expenditure shown in those accounts were never contradicted or questioned by the non-applicants at any point of time. As per the commencement order all the preparatory work were duly notified by the applicant online to the non-applicants for verification and issuance of the mandatory Due Diligence Report online on 07.03.2020. 7. Mr. Nair further submits that the expenditure shown in those accounts were never contradicted or questioned by the non-applicants at any point of time. As per the commencement order all the preparatory work were duly notified by the applicant online to the non-applicants for verification and issuance of the mandatory Due Diligence Report online on 07.03.2020. It is further submitted that on 13.03.2020, a team of officers from SRLM visited the training center set up by the applicant and suggested few modifications on 19.03.2020 and these suggestions were complied with by the applicant immediately and the compliance done by applicant was verified by the team of the officers of SRLM through video conferencing upon which they suggested few more minor modifications in the training setup which were also complied with by the applicant immediately. A team of the non-applicants further conducted physical verification of the training center on 11.11.2020 and suggested further minor modifications on 06.01.2021 which were also compiled with by the applicant on the same date and report for the same was also submitted to the non-applicants. On 19.01.2021, a team of officers from the SRLM further visited the center for verification of the arrangements done by the applicant to impart the necessary training and finally 'Due Diligence Report' was approved on 15.02.2021 by the non-applicants for 48 students only. The non-applicants thus took more than 11 months time to approve the 'First Due Diligence Report' and this Due Diligence Report was further modified by the Managing Director of SRLM on 08.03.2021 whereby it was directed that instead of 48 students, the Training Centre should run with full strength i.e. 105 students. Thus it is evident that almost 12 months were taken by the non-applicants to approve the necessary Due Diligence Report to start the skill development training programme, whereas as per the guidelines in the SOP, the non-applicant were required to approve Due Diligence Report within a period of 10 days of submission of the report. In the meantime, the applicant continued to bear all the recurring and non-recurring expenses under due intimation to the non-applicants. 8. Thereafter, on 11.02.2021 the non-applicant No.3 intimated to the Authorized Signatory of the applicant (PIA) about interim evaluation of monthly financial verification certificate for month of September 2020 bearing reference no. 1643/V-06/NRLM/DDU-GKY/2021 (DDU-GKY Project) and 1641/V-06/NRLM/DDU- GKY)/2021 (ROSHNI Project). In the meantime, the applicant continued to bear all the recurring and non-recurring expenses under due intimation to the non-applicants. 8. Thereafter, on 11.02.2021 the non-applicant No.3 intimated to the Authorized Signatory of the applicant (PIA) about interim evaluation of monthly financial verification certificate for month of September 2020 bearing reference no. 1643/V-06/NRLM/DDU-GKY/2021 (DDU-GKY Project) and 1641/V-06/NRLM/DDU- GKY)/2021 (ROSHNI Project). It is worthy to mention herein that these letters are sufficient to demonstrate that Department/non-applicants had full control and supervision over the expenditure and finances of the project and full authority was vested in non-applicant No. 3. It is also clear from this letter that "Monthly financial verification certificate" is required to be submitted by the applicant regularly from the duly authorized Chartered Accountant. Even earlier on 23/10/2020, the Joint Commissioner of office of Development Commissioner, Chhattisgarh State Rural Livelihood Mission (CGSRLM) has issued an interim evaluation letter for monthly verification certificate submitted by the applicant for the month of July, 2020 in which it was observed that the salary has been paid to the trainers, master trainers, and q-team members with delay of 10 days and 22 days. The letters issued by the respondent No.3 dated 23.10.2020 along with letter dated 11.02.2021 clearly demonstrate the fact that utilization of funds by the PIA was under constant and strict supervision of the non-applicants. The applicant, as per the stipulated time mentioned in the commencement order notified online to the non-applicants about all the arrangements done by the applicant requesting for verification and issuance of the Due Diligence Report so that training can start in right earnest and well within time. On 07.03.2020, there was no reported incident of Covid-19 in the State of Chhattisgarh and there was no legal restriction such as lockdown, curfew etc. Thus, the applicant on his part did all the necessary arrangements/preparations to start the training programme in accordance with the government guidelines by utilizing the initial funds provided to the applicant as per the sanction order, i.e. to the extent of 15% of the total project cost. A Perusal of the Due Diligence Report issued by CGSRLM as mentioned above clearly indicates the complete preparedness of the Applicant to start the training programme and thus so far as the Applicant is concerned he has performed his part of the contract. A Perusal of the Due Diligence Report issued by CGSRLM as mentioned above clearly indicates the complete preparedness of the Applicant to start the training programme and thus so far as the Applicant is concerned he has performed his part of the contract. It would be pertinent to mention here that Clause 5.1.20 of Standard Operating Procedure (SOPs) deals with Due Diligence Report "opening of training center". It is mentioned in the Standard Operating Procedure (SOPs) that the CGSRLM shall "check within 10 working days of receipt of information from Project Implementation Agency (PIA) q-team if the above is not possible due diligence should be done within 20 working days of start of training, delaying it will impact the performance of grading of the Chhattisgarh State Rural Livelihoods Mission (CGSRLM), Non-Applicant work specifically included to check on Project Implementation Agency (PIA) and to upload result from the due diligence report unto a designated website." 9. It is submitted that despite the above provision, the CGSRLM approved the Due Diligence Report after a lapse of almost one year for reasons best known to the non-applicants and the applicant in the meantime kept running from pillar to post and making several requests from time to time in view of the time boundation of the projects. Between the time period i.e. submission of Due Diligence Report and its approval, the Applicant has sustained all the expenditures on infrastructure, employment, lodging and boarding etc. which was duly communicated online to the non-applicants in the shape of monthly financial verification certificates. There were no major objections by the non-applicants except the few minor modifications suggested by them as mentioned above which were complied with by the applicant immediately. 10. Mr. Nair also submits that by doctrine of estoppel, non-applicants cannot challenge the genuineness of monthly financial verification certificates submitted by the applicant and the expenses incurred on the implementation of the project. It is thus clear from what has been stated above that the delay in implementing the entire project has to be attributed to the acts of the non-applicants who have not co-operated and followed the guidelines to complete the project by performing there part of the contract on time. The duration of the project was 36 months. As per the commencement order, the projects were deemed to have commenced w.e.f 10.11.2019 and to be completed by 09.11.2022. The duration of the project was 36 months. As per the commencement order, the projects were deemed to have commenced w.e.f 10.11.2019 and to be completed by 09.11.2022. It is further submitted that the Covid pandemic started spreading its wings after March 2020 and in exercise of powers conferred under section 10 (2) (j) of Disaster Management Act, 2005, Central Government issued a Nationwide complete lockdown. Therefore Government of India, Ministry of Rural Development also issued the circular dated 31.03.2020 to ensure timely assistance to all DDU-GKY projects during Covid- 19 crisis enclosing the Notification issued by Ministry of Home Affairs dated 29/03/2020. Even the non-applicant No.3, on 17.03.2020 issued an advisory for dissemination of information about common signs and symptoms of Novel Corona Virus Disease Covid- 19 for generating awareness to prevent spread of the disease. During the entire Covid-19 period, in anticipation of approval of the Due Diligence Report which was submitted on 07.03.2020, the applicant sustained all the expenditures as stated above and provided monthly financial verification certificates to the non-applicants and in fact the Due Diligence Report was approved during the restriction period starting from March, 2020 till 02.10.2021 on account of Covid-19 pandemic means thereby clearance of the Due Diligence Report became useless as training cannot be imparted on account of Covid restrictions imposed by Government of India and the State Government. To meet with this situation, Government of India issued a Notification dated 25.06.2021 for extension of the project duration due to Covid-19. The benefit of this circular was not given to the applicant despite request and duration was not extended as per the said circular inflicting irreparable loss to the applicant. 11. The non-applicants have invoked the bank guarantees submitted by the applicant on 13.04.2022 for both the projects DDU-GKY and ROSHNI project without giving any show cause notice and without taking into consideration the fact that Government of India has enhanced the duration of the projects on account of Covid situation. The non-applicants also ignored the clause 9 of MoU which relates to Force Majeure due to which a dispute has arisen between the applicant and non-applicants which needs to be decided and adjudged by Arbitration Dispute Resolution Mechanism, i.e according to clause 8 of the MoU which converted into concluded contract. The non-applicants also ignored the clause 9 of MoU which relates to Force Majeure due to which a dispute has arisen between the applicant and non-applicants which needs to be decided and adjudged by Arbitration Dispute Resolution Mechanism, i.e according to clause 8 of the MoU which converted into concluded contract. The applicant has sustained following expenditure for which he is entitled to be reimbursed and also the entire amount against the invocation of bank guarantees should be reimbursed to the applicant. The balance sheet from 01.04.2019 to 31.03.2022 of the DDU-GKY project and the balance sheet from 01.04.2019 to 31.03.2022 for ROSHNI project according to which Rs.1,76,45,990/- has been spent by the applicant in DDU-GKY project and Rs. 1,92,45,335/- has been spent in ROSHNI project. Apart from this there is also several outstanding payments due which are yet to be paid by the applicant on various accounts and which are pending due to non-release of further funds by the non-applicants. According to the MoU, the State Government is Arbitrator and also the nodal agency of the project which is sponsored by Union of India and therefore interested in the outcome of arbitral process and therefore it is humbly requested that instead of State Government, the dispute may kindly be referred to Retired High Court Judge in the interest of Justice. 12. Mr. Nair also submits that he dispute between the parties are due to reasons attributable to the Non-Applicants on account of failure of the Non-Applicants to perform their part of the contract mainly on the issues as stated in paragraph 19 of the arbitration request application. The applicant has already requested for appointment of Arbitrator vide its legal notice dated 05.08.2022 which been received by the non-applicants on 12.08.2022. However, no response has been received by the applicant till date. Even after expiry of statutory time period of thirty days from the date of service of notice dated 12.08.2022 invoking Arbitration clause, the non-applicants have not nominated any Arbitrator as provided in the MoU dated 27.09.2019 containing the Arbitration clause. On account of this legal notice, the non-applicants on 25.08.2022 unilaterally and behind the back of the applicant have decided to blacklist the applicant and have further ordered for refund of initial funds against which expenditure has already been made causing great harm to the reputation of the Applicant and putting him into financial mayhem. On account of this legal notice, the non-applicants on 25.08.2022 unilaterally and behind the back of the applicant have decided to blacklist the applicant and have further ordered for refund of initial funds against which expenditure has already been made causing great harm to the reputation of the Applicant and putting him into financial mayhem. In the said order (ANNEXURE P/13) there is reference to the decision taken by the Project Development Committee in its 23rd meeting, however minutes of the resolution of the said committee has not been enclosed with the communication. Before taking decision either to blacklist or to invoke Bank Guarantee or to decide to recover the amount already disbursed neither any show cause notice was issued nor any opportunity of hearing was provided to the Applicant which is against the principles of justness, reasonableness and fairness. Therefore, due to the failure on behalf of the non-applicants to respond to the applicant for nomination of the sole Arbitrator, the applicant is constrained to invoke the provisions of Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (read with Arbitration Amendment Act, 2015) and requests this Hon'ble Court to appoint any suitable and qualified person as the Arbitrator on behalf of both the Applicant and Non-Applicants under the provisions of Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and in accordance with clause "8" of the MoU dated 27.09.2019 to adjudicate upon the disputes and differences between the parties as stated above. No part of the claim is barred by the law of limitation. The arbitral proceedings commenced by the notice dated 05.08.2022 which was successfully received by the non-applicants on 12.08.2022. Hence, no part of the claim is barred by the law of limitation. In support of his contentions, Mr. Nair relies on a decision of the Supreme Court in Smt. Rukmani Bai Gupta v. Collector, Jabalpur & Others { (1980) 4 SCC 556 , paragraphs 2 and 6} and Jagdish Chander v. Ramesh Chander { (2007) 5 SCC 719 }. 13. On the other hand, Mr. Vikram Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 submits that the petitioner has filed an application under Section 11(6) of the Act of 1996 for the appointment of the Arbitrator, by relying upon Clause 8 of the Agreement. However, the present request for the appointment of the arbitrator deserved to be dismissed as there is no clause of Arbitration. Vikram Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 submits that the petitioner has filed an application under Section 11(6) of the Act of 1996 for the appointment of the Arbitrator, by relying upon Clause 8 of the Agreement. However, the present request for the appointment of the arbitrator deserved to be dismissed as there is no clause of Arbitration. In the present case, in hand, apart from finding place in the heading under Clause 8 as "Arbitration and Applicable Law", nowhere, in the entire clause, the words like "Arbitration", or the "Parties may appoint Arbitrator" found place, which goes to root of the matter, and creates the dispute, with regard to the existence of the Arbitration Agreement, and therefore, the present application deserved to be dismissed as there is no existence of Arbitration clause, and no such arbitration agreement exists between the parties. He further submits that mere use of the words, "Arbitration" or "Arbitrator", in a clause will not make it an arbitration agreement, to establish whether there is an arbitration agreement, the petitioner has to establish, that, whether at any point of time, there is an indication between the parties to refer to the arbitration is the dispute arises, in the present case, by bare perusal of Clause 8, there appears to be non-existence of the Arbitration Agreement, between the parties, and therefore, for this reason alone the present application filed by the petitioner is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. The applicant is basically aggrieved by the fact that it has been blacklisted and in such situation, before passing of the order of the blacklisting, the applicant had made a request under Section 21 of the Act of 1996 for invocation of the arbitration clause. After the receipt of the said request, the applicant was blacklisted. The petitioner was firstly required to file an appeal before the State Government challenging the order of blacklisting and in absence of arbitration clause in the MoU, this petition deserves to be dismissed. Mere presence of words ‘Arbitration and Applicable Laws’ in clause 8 of the MoU does not mean that any arbitration clause exists in this case. In support of his contentions, he relies on a decision of the Supreme Court in Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd.& Another v. IVRCL AMR Joint Venture {2022 SC OnLine SC 960} 14. Mere presence of words ‘Arbitration and Applicable Laws’ in clause 8 of the MoU does not mean that any arbitration clause exists in this case. In support of his contentions, he relies on a decision of the Supreme Court in Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd.& Another v. IVRCL AMR Joint Venture {2022 SC OnLine SC 960} 14. On the last date of hearing i.e. on 24.11.2023, the learned State counsel was granted time to seek instructions as to whether the matter had been referred to the Government of Chhattisgarh as per Clause 8.1 of the MoU dated 27.09.2019. 15. In response to the above, Mr. Vikram Sharma, learned State counsel submits that no such appeal has been filed by the applicant before the State Government. 16. Clause 8 of the MoU reads as under: “8. Arbitration and Applicable laws: 8.1 The parties hereby agree that any dispute arising in connection with this MoU shall first be addressed mutually by the parties. If the said parties are unable to resolve the dispute mutually, the dispute shall be referred to the Government of Chhattisgarh whose decision shall be final and binding on all the parties. 8.2 In case any aggrieved party seek judicial remedy, the petition shall be filed in the jurisdiction of Chhattisgarh High Court. 17. The Supreme Court, in Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. & Another (supra), observed as under: “7. The submission which has been urged on behalf of the appellants by the learned Attorney General is that clause 15 of the Contract Agreement dated 30 January 2012 does not constitute an arbitration agreement. Hence, it has been urged that in the absence of an arbitration agreement within the meaning of Sections 2(b) and 7 of the 1996 Act, the very invocation of the jurisdiction under Section 11(6) was not valid. In order to appreciate the submission, it would be necessary to extract clause 15 of the Contract Agreement. The provision reads as follows: “15. Settlement of Disputes/Arbitration: 15.1 It is incumbent upon the contractor to avoid litigation and disputes during the course of execution. However, if such disputes take place between the contractor and the department, effort shall be made first to settle the disputes at the company level. The provision reads as follows: “15. Settlement of Disputes/Arbitration: 15.1 It is incumbent upon the contractor to avoid litigation and disputes during the course of execution. However, if such disputes take place between the contractor and the department, effort shall be made first to settle the disputes at the company level. The contractor should make request in writing to the Engineer-in-Charge for settlement of such disputes/claims within 30 (thirty) days of arising of the case of dispute/claim failing which no disputes/claims of the contractor shall be entertained by the company. 15.2 If differences still persist, the settlement of the dispute with Govt. Agencies shall be dealt with as per the Guidelines issued by the Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India in this regard. In case of parties other than Govt. Agencies, the redressal of the disputes may be sought in the Court of Law.” 8. Section 2(b) of the 1996 Act defines an arbitration agreement to mean an agreement as referred to in Section 7. In terms of Section 7, an arbitration agreement is an agreement by the parties to submit to arbitration all or certain disputes which have arisen or which may arise between them in respect of a defined legal relationship, whether contractual or not. Sub-section (2) of Section 7 stipulates that an arbitration agreement may be in the form of an arbitration clause in a contract or in the form of a separate agreement. In terms of sub-section (3) of Section 7, the arbitration agreement has to be in writing. Sub-section (4) of Section 7 then stipulates that: “(4) An arbitration agreement is in writing if it is contained in- (a) a document signed by the parties; (b) an exchange of letters, telex, telegrams or other means of telecommunication including communication through electronic means which provide a record of the agreement; or (c) an exchange of statements of claim and defence in which the existence of the agreement is alleged by one party and not denied by the other.” 9. In Jagdish Chander v. Ramesh Chander { (2007) 5 SCC 719 }, a two-judge bench of this Court, while relying upon the earlier decisions in K.K. Modi v. K. N. Modi { (1998) 3 SCC 573 }, Bharat Bhushan Bansal v. U.P. Small Industries Corpn. In Jagdish Chander v. Ramesh Chander { (2007) 5 SCC 719 }, a two-judge bench of this Court, while relying upon the earlier decisions in K.K. Modi v. K. N. Modi { (1998) 3 SCC 573 }, Bharat Bhushan Bansal v. U.P. Small Industries Corpn. Ltd. { (1999) 2 SCC 166 }, Bihar State Mineral Development Corpn v. Encon Builders (I) (P) Ltd.{ (2003) 7 SCC 418 } and State of Orissa v. Damodar Das { (1996) 2 SCC 216 } enumerated the principles governing what constitutes an arbitration agreement. Justice R.V.Raveendran, speaking on behalf of the bench, held that the words used in an arbitration agreement should disclose a determination and obligation on behalf of parties to refer disputes to arbitration. This court held: “8 (i) The intention of the parties to enter into an arbitration agreement shall have to be gathered from the terms of the agreement. If the terms of the agreement clearly indicate an intention on the part of the parties to the agreement to refer their disputes to a private tribunal for adjudication and a willingness to be bound by the decision of such tribunal on such disputes, it is arbitration agreement. While there is no specific form of an arbitration agreement, the words used should disclose a determination and obligation to go to arbitration and not merely contemplate the possibility of going for arbitration. Where there is merely a possibility of the parties agreeing to arbitration in future, as contrasted from an obligation to refer disputes to arbitration, there is no valid and binding arbitration agreement. (ii) Even if the words “arbitration” and “Arbitral Tribunal (or arbitrator)” are not used with reference to the process of settlement or with reference to the private tribunal which has to adjudicate upon the disputes, in a clause relating to settlement of disputes, it does not detract from the clause being an arbitration agreement if it has the attributes or elements of an arbitration agreement. They are: (a) The agreement should be in writing. (b) The parties should have agreed to refer any disputes (present or future) between them to the decision of a private tribunal. (c) The private tribunal should be empowered to adjudicate upon the disputes in an impartial manner, giving due opportunity to the parties to put forth their case before it. They are: (a) The agreement should be in writing. (b) The parties should have agreed to refer any disputes (present or future) between them to the decision of a private tribunal. (c) The private tribunal should be empowered to adjudicate upon the disputes in an impartial manner, giving due opportunity to the parties to put forth their case before it. (d) The parties should have agreed that the decision of the private tribunal in respect of the disputes will be binding on them. (iii) Where the clause provides that in the event of disputes arising between the parties, the disputes shall be referred to arbitration, it is an arbitration agreement. Where there is a specific and direct expression of intent to have the disputes settled by arbitration, it is not necessary to set out the attributes of an arbitration agreement to make it an arbitration agreement. But where the clause relating to settlement of disputes, contains words which specifically exclude any of the attributes of an arbitration agreement or contains anything that detracts from an arbitration agreement, it will not be arbitration agreement. For example, where an agreement requires or permits an authority to decide a claim or dispute without hearing, or requires the authority to act in the interests of only one of the parties, or provides that the decision of the authority will not be final and binding on the parties, or that if either party is not satisfied with the decision of the authority, he may file a civil suit seeking relief, it cannot be termed as an arbitration agreement. (iv) But mere use of the word “arbitration” or “arbitrator” in a clause will not make it an arbitration agreement, if it requires or contemplates a further or fresh consent of the parties for reference to arbitration. For example, use of words such as “parties can, if they so desire, refer their disputes to arbitration” or “in the event of any dispute, the parties may also agree to refer the same to arbitration” or “if any disputes arise between the parties, they should consider settlement by arbitration” in a clause relating to settlement of disputes, indicate that the clause is not intended to be an arbitration agreement. Similarly, a clause which states that “if the parties so decide, the disputes shall be referred to arbitration” or “any disputes between parties, if they so agree, shall be referred to arbitration” is not an arbitration agreement. Such clauses merely indicate a desire or hope to have the disputes settled by arbitration, or a tentative arrangement to explore arbitration as a mode of settlement if and when a dispute arises. Such clauses require the parties to arrive at a further agreement to go to arbitration, as and when the disputes arise. Any agreement or clause in an agreement requiring or contemplating a further consent or consensus before a reference to arbitration, is not an arbitration agreement, but an agreement to enter into an arbitration agreement in future.” 10. In the present case, clause 15 of the Contract Agreement is titled “Settlement of Disputes/Arbitration”. However, the substantive part of the provision makes it abundantly clear that there is no arbitration agreement between the parties agreeing to refer either present or future disputes to arbitration.” 18. From perusal of clause 8 of the MoU, it is evident that there is no clause for referring the disputes between the parties to the Arbitrator and it only provides for a mechanism to resolve the dispute amicably and the order passed by the State Government shall be binding. The judgments cited by the learned counsel for the applicant are not applicable to the facts of the case in hand and on the contrary, the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. & Another (supra) is fully applicable. 19. Resultantly, this arbitration request is dismissed.