other party, it is imperative that apart from serving or retired engineers of government departments and public sector undertakings, Engineers of prominence and high repute from private sector should also be included, likewise panel should comprise of persons with legal background like Judges and Lawyers of repute as it is not necessary that all the disputes that arise would be technical in nature. In fact, I find in the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Simplex Infrastructures Ltd. (supra) , the respondent Company had provided 26 names with only nine being Officers who were not connected with Railways or other Railways organizations / Companies, still there being no persons with any legal, accountancy backgrounds or from other diverse fields, the Court went ahead to hold clearly that in spite of repeated judgments relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Voestalpine Schienen GMBH (supra) , the respondent refused to comprehensively broad base its panel and had appointed the nominee Arbitrator on behalf of the respondent in the said case. So, it must follow, that the panel of thirty seven names given by the respondent Company, also, does not satisfy the concept of neutrality of Arbitrators as it is not broad based. 33. The plea of Mr. Anil Seth is primarily that there is no cause of action for the petitioner to move this Court under Section 11(6) of the Act of 1996 by relying upon the judgment of this Court in Sushil Kumar Bhardwaj (supra). I am not in agreement with the submission made by Mr. Anil Seth for the simple reason that when the arbitration Clause itself is invalid for the reasons stated above and the petitioner having nominated its
