Page |1

REPRESENTATION

This representation is submitted by the undersigned legal professionals,

arbitrators, mediators and ADR practitioners from all over India, to highlight some
serious concerns affecting the rule of law, due process of law and judicial
propriety, affecting the credibility of judicial administration and delivery of justice.
Certain actions done by the present Chief Justice of India, Justice N.V. Ramana,
along with some brother/sister judges have sent shock waves eroding public
respect for the judiciary and adversely affecting judicial credibility, especially at a
time when the judicial credibility is repeatedly put to the test.

I. Facts:

1.1 On 18/12/2021, the Chief Justice of India N.V. Ramana and Telangana
Chief Minister K. Chandrasekhar Rao inaugurated the “International
Arbitration and Mediation Centre” (IAMC) at Hyderabad. As per the news
reports1, the function was attended by Supreme Court Judges, Justice L.
Nageswara Rao and Justice Hima Kohli, SC former judge Justice R.V.
Raveendran, Telangana High Court Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
and ministers Mahmood Ali, KT Rama Rao and Indrakaran Reddy.

1.2 The press release given by the centre was as if an international Centre
has been launched by the government of Telangana and the Chief Justice
in his official capacity has inaugurated it the inauguration ceremony was
attended by Supreme Court Judge, Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice
Hima Kohli in their official capacity.

1.3 But thereafter it was seen that IAMC was very strangely promoted by the
Chief Justice and other judges who were present at the function. On
scrutinising the constitution of IAMC, it was understood that the centre
was established under a Trust2 formed by Justice N.V Ramana in his
capacity (as there was no official sanction by the Government of India or

1
https://www.newindianexpress.com/states/telangana/2021/dec/19/cji-inaugurates-international-arbitration-
-mediation-centre-in-hyderabad-2397204.html
2
https://iamch.org.in/iamc-trust-deed
 Page |2

the Supreme Court of India for establishing such a centre) and was
registered (Reg. No. 564/BK-4/2021) on 20/08/2021 at Hyderabad.

1.4 From the Trust deed it could also be seen that Justice N.V. Ramana as the
author of the trust had appointed Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Judge of
Supreme Court and Justice R.V. Raveendran, former Judge, Supreme Court
of India, as life trustees and Justice Hima Kohli and Sri A. Indrakaran
Reddy as Ex-officio trustees in their respective capacities as the Chief
Justice of Telangana and Law Minister, Government of Telangana. This
information was conspicuously concealed during the inaugural function nor
made public.

1.5 Even though it was propagated that there is no direct connection of IAMC
with Justice N.V. Ramana, except that he is the founder of the Trust and
that he is neither a trustee nor a member of the Governing Council, it is
seen that Justice Ramana has been consistently promoting the centre and
using his official position to solicit business for the centre.

II. ROLE OF THE JUDGES:

The following incidents indicate the proactive and affirmative role of Justice N.V.
Ramana with IAMC:

2.1 Propagating and promoting the centre:

(a) Even before the inauguration of the centre, the Chief Justice’s bench of the
Supreme Court, comprising of Justice N.V. Ramana and Justice Hima Kohli
made the parties in a high stake matter to accept mediation and put forth
a condition that they should use the infrastructure of IAMC at Hyderabad.
This was reflected in the order passed in the said case. But, what is more,
astonishing is that Justice Ramana proudly took credit for providing the
first work at IAMC, during his inaugural speech, “I want to tell one thing;
before the Centre started, two days back when a heavy dispute between
two families, that is the Modi family, has come up before our bench, Sister
Justice Hima Kohli was one of the members of the bench. So, we
 Page |3

suggested mediation and they readily agreed. We set a condition that you
have to use the facilities of Hyderabad Mediation and Arbitration Centre. So
you already have got the first case”3. In the court proceedings, Justice
Ramana told the lawyers, “We have started a new centre at Hyderabad”,
misrepresenting as if the Supreme Court has started a centre at
Hyderabad.

(b) On 04/12/2021, Justice Ramana spoke at the “Stakeholders' Conclave” at

IAMC, where he urged companies to opt for arbitration at this centre and
not at any centre outside India and stated that setting up of this centre will
change this trend in India.4

(c) On 19/03/2022, while speaking at the international conference on

“Arbitration in the era of globalisation” in Dubai, Justice Ramana said that
he along with his brother and sister judges sitting with him on the dais (it
shows that all these judges had gone to Dubai for promoting the centre)
have set up IAMC at Hyderabad, which he said will deliver services at
international standards.5

(d) On 21/06/2022, in his inaugural address delivered at the Annual Meet of

Indo-German Chamber of Commerce on “Arbitration in a Globalised World
– The Indian Experience” at Dortmund, Germany, Justice Ramana
appraised the participants that in an attempt to augment the arbitration
experience, IAMC has been set up in Hyderabad under the aegis of the
CJI.6 Here Justice Ramana misrepresented the fact by stating that the
centre is an initiative of the CJI, trying to convey that it is an official centre
of India.

3
https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Hyderabad/first-case-at-iamc-to-be-lalit-modi-family-dispute-
case/article37986694.ece
4
https://www.sentinelassam.com/topheadlines/explore-mediation-courts-should-be-the-last-resort-cji-nv-
ramana-566296
5
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/india/arbitration-best-suited-dispute-resolution-mechanism-for-
globalised-world-cji-n-v-ramana/articleshow/90323625.cms
6
https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/cji-ramana-calls-for-balance-in-geography-of-international-arbitration-
between-developed-developing-countries-202026
 Page |4

(e) On 04/07/2022, delivering the inaugural address at the Conference on

“Arbitrating Indo-UK Commercial Disputes” at Mansion House, London,
Justice Ramana spoke about his initiative to set up IAMC in Hyderabad and
stated that the presence of an international centre will not only boost
India's global position as an investor-friendly nation but also will facilitate
the growth of a robust legal practice.7 Justice Ramana tried to
misrepresent the fact as if this centre is an official venture of the Supreme
Court or government by connecting another statement along with this
statement that the Government of India has proposed to set up another
one in the state of Gujarat.8

2.2 Direct nexus in taking decisions on the centre and violating the
terms of the Trust deed:

(a) Even though it is stated that Justice Ramana has no direct nexus in the
administration of the centre and that he is neither a Trustee nor Governing
Board member, Justice Ramana is the key person who takes decisions
about the centre.

(b) Justice L. Nageswara Rao was made a life trustee by Ramana in the
Trust. On 21/05/2022, and at the farewell function on the retirement of
Justice Nageswara Rao, Justice Ramana declared that Justice Nageswara
Rao will be heading IAMC after demitting office9

(c) Justice Hima Kohli was elevated as a Judge of the Supreme Court of India
on 31/08/2021. This was 10 days after the execution of the Trust deed and
4 months before the inauguration of the centre. As per the Trust deed,
Justice Hima Kohli was an Ex- Officio trustee, in her capacity as the Chief
Justice of Telangana. As per clause 4.6 of the Trust deed10, the term of
office of the Ex-Officio Trustees shall be co-terminus with the respective

7
https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/india-can-be-chosen-as-a-favoured-investment-destination-because-of-
its-independent-judiciary-rule-of-law-cji-ramana-at-london-conference-203026
8
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/india/arbitration-best-suited-dispute-resolution-mechanism-for-
commercial-world-says-cji/articleshow/92681564.cms
9
https://www.barandbench.com/columns/former-supreme-court-judge-justice-l-nageswara-rao-spotlight
10
https://iamch.org.in/iamc-trust-deed
 Page |5

office held by them. But, even after her elevation as a Judge of the
Supreme Court, Justice Ramana has made her continue as a Trustee.11

(d) Justice R.V. Raveendran, who is made a life Trustee by Justice Ramana, is
closely connected with Justice Ramana. In a criminal case filed by the Anti-
Corruption Bureau of Andhra Pradesh against a former Advocate General
of Andhra Pradesh along with Justice Ramana’s two daughters for illegally
purchasing premium land in Amaravati before it was declared the
capital12, a connected matter came up where a former Chief Justice of
Andhra Pradesh High Court, Justice V Eswaraiah admitted that he was
“trying to collect more evidence” on the alleged involvement of the
daughters of the sitting top judge in the Amaravati land scam13. In this
matter, the High Court had directed Justice Raveendran to conduct an
inquiry into this phone conversation14. It is regrettable that Justice
Ramana included Justice Raveendran, who was enquiring in a matter
connected with allegations of corrupt practice of procuring huge land by
the daughters of Ramana, to be a life trustee in the trust that he
established.

2.3 Using official position to gain benefits for the Centre:

(a) Justice Ramana had directly asked the Telangana government to allot
around 5 to 10 acres of land nearby the financial district to set up the
centre.15 The Trust deed was executed on 20/08/2021 and with lightning
speed, an MoU was signed between the government and the trust on
27/10/2021 agreeing to give 5 acres of land at Hi-tech City, Puppalguda,
Hyderabad (the estimated value of which is over Rs. 250 crores) and
during the interim period for hosting the centre, the government gave
25,000 sq. ft. of prime commercial built-up space fully furnished in
Hyderabad’s financial district, free of cost. And at the time of inauguration,

11
https://iamch.org.in/about/board-of-trustees
12
https://thewire.in/government/andhra-land-scam-fir-supreme-court-judge-amaravati
13
https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/amaravati-land-scam-ex-andhra-hc-judge-files-personal-
affidavit-in-supreme-court-101610924244289.html
14
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/189622078/
15
https://www.deccanchronicle.com/nation/current-affairs/200821/trust-deed-for-arbitration-centre-
registered-cji-ramana-thanks-cm-kcr.html
 Page |6

the keys of two floors at VK Towers in Gachibowli were handed over by

Chief Minister K Chandrasekhar Rao to Justice Ramana16. The largesse
from the state government of Telangana was only to oblige the positional
pressure exerted by Justice Ramana and use his close friendship with the
Chief Minister. In addition, it is understood that State Government has
given Rs. 50 crores to this Centre.

(b) The foundation stone for the new centre on the 5 acres of land gifted by
the government was also laid by Justice Ramana on March 12, 2022.17

(c) The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) referred the 13-year-old
dispute between the Sanghi brothers over their enterprises to the IAMC.
The Tribunal with a belatedly arrived sense of justice mentioned in its
order that the prolonged battle would affect the industry adversely in the
long run and therefore referred the matter to IAMC for faster resolution.18
It is evident from where the dictate has come. It is understood that
pressure has been exerted by Justice Ramana on many NCLTs to refer high
stake matters to his centre.

(d) It can be recalled, that Justice N.V. Ramana along with Justice Hima Kohli,
themselves had persuaded the parties in the property dispute between
former IPL chairman Lalit Modi and his mother Bina Modi for mediation and
put forth a condition that they should use the infrastructure of IAMC at
Hyderabad. When the first round of mediation failed, Justice Ramana
appointed Justice Raveendran as the mediator, who is a Trustee of IAMC,
stating that he will suggest only one name for mediation and that is Justice
Raveendran19.

16
https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Hyderabad/first-case-at-iamc-to-be-lalit-modi-family-dispute-
case/article37986694.ece
17
http://bwlegalworld.businessworld.in/article/IAMC-Releases-Its-First-Quarterly-Report-Conducts-More-
Than-50-Hearings-In-Three-Months/29-03-2022-423938/
18
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/hyderabad/nclt-refers-sanghi-dispute-to-
iamc/articleshow/88461786.cms
19
https://www.pgurus.com/sc-appoints-justice-retd-r-v-raveendran-to-mediate-property-dispute-between-
lalit-modi-and-his-
mother/#:~:text=The%20Supreme%20Court%20on%20Monday%20appointed%20former%20apex,division
%20of%20father%20Industrialist%20late%20K%20K%20Modi.
 Page |7

(e) By the influence of Justice Ramana, the state government has come
forward to make IAMC its adjudication centre for any possible disputes that
may arise during the implementation of its contracts, and tenders, about
the state government's works. This was declared by the Chief Minister
himself at the inaugural meet of the IAMC.20 The Chief Minister went on
record to say that the government will soon amend laws to facilitate local
arbitration.21

(f) Based on the promise, the government issued an order that IAMC will be
the institution for all the contracts above Rs. 30 million where the
ministries, departments and other entities controlled or managed by the
government of Telangana are involved. The order also mandates that all
the PSU disputes of value above Rs. 100 million will be handled by the
IAMC only.22

(g) All these have yielded results and financial gains. The first Quarterly Report
released by IAMC on 29/03/2022, stated that IAMC in a short period, has
conducted more than 50 hearings, both administered under the IAMC
Rules as well as ad-hoc with disputes aggregating USD 400 million.
Twenty-two matters (including a batch of matters) have been referred to
IAMC, Hyderabad by various Courts and Tribunals across the country
including two matters from the Supreme Court of India.23

III. MISBEHAVIOUR & MISCONDUCT ON JUDICIAL VALUES:

3.1 Conduct of Judges and Rule of Law

(a) There can be no doubt that the successful working of the rule of law is the
basic foundation of the democratic way of life. In this connection, it is

20
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/hyderabad/nclt-refers-sanghi-dispute-to-
iamc/articleshow/88461786.cms
21
https://www.deccanchronicle.com/nation/current-affairs/191221/ordinance-to-refer-state-disputes-to-iamc-
kcr.html
22
https://www-barandbench-
com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/www.barandbench.com/amp/story/interviews/iamc-exclusive-interview-with-
tariq-khan
23
http://bwlegalworld.businessworld.in/article/IAMC-Releases-Its-First-Quarterly-Report-Conducts-More-
Than-50-Hearings-In-Three-Months/29-03-2022-423938/
 Page |8

necessary to remember that the status, dignity and importance of the two
institutions – the Legislatures and the Judicature, are derived from the
status, dignity and importance that are assigned to them by the
Constitution. In a Democracy, the Judiciary, as a custodian of constitutional
rights and obligations cannot be above public accountability. Judicial
independence and accountability are interlinked. Mr Justice S.H. Kapadia,
former Chief Justice of India said, “When we talk of ethics, the judges
normally comment upon ethics among politicians, students and professors
and others. But I would say that for a judge too, ethics, not only
constitutional morality but even ethical morality, should be the base.”24

(b) The well-known legal luminaries including former Chief Justice of India S.
Venkataramaiah and Former Judges of the Supreme Court D.A. Desai and
Chinnappa Reddy have expressed the view that if all the sections of the
society are accountable for their actions, there is no reason why the Judges
should not be so.25 Former Chief Justice, J.S. Verma recognized the validity
of this plea when he remarked on one occasion, “These days we (Judges)
are telling everyone what they should do but who is to tell us? We have
the task of enforcing the rule of law, but does not exempt and even
exonerate us from following it”.

(c) This highlights the fact that judges are not infallible both legally as well as
ethically, and when they fall short it needs to be pointed out and corrected
so that it does not harm or bring down the institution as a whole; rather it
helps in strengthening people’s belief in the system. In a democracy, public
perception matters, one must not only be honest but also must be seen, to
be honest.

(d) The conduct of Judges in India is not guided by any statute or even the
Constitution. However, the move for best practices within the judiciary at a
global level has been in full swing over the years and India continues to be
a party to it. After the Bangalore Declarations on judicial conduct (1998-99)
and the international round table meeting of the Chief Justices from
24
http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/214/Ethics-of-Judges-&-Judicial-Accountability.html
25
Rama Reddi Padala, “Advocates Practice” Vol.2 at 1469, Hyderabad, Padala Rama Reddi Educational
Society
 Page |9

various jurisdictions at The Hague (2002), judicial morality is no more

uncertain or abstract. The resolution "Restatement of values of judicial life"
was adopted and ratified by the Indian judiciary as well.

3.2 The Values and Constitutional mandates of Judicial Life

(a) In India on 7th May 1997 a 16-point Code of Conduct, for ensuring proper
conduct among members of the higher judiciary was adopted by the
Judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts. The 16-point Code
which is referred to as “The Restatement of Values of Judicial Life”26 is
believed to have become effective since then. Some of the relevant
stipulations of the 16-point code are as follows:

Code 1: Justice must not merely be done but it must also be seen as done.
The behaviour and conduct of members of the higher judiciary must
reaffirm the people’s faith in the impartiality of the judiciary. Accordingly,
any act of a Judge of the Supreme Court or a High Court, whether in an
official or personal capacity, which erodes the credibility of the perception
has to be avoided.

Code 6: A Judge should practice a degree of aloofness consistent with the

dignity of his office.

Code 13: A Judge should not engage directly or indirectly in trade or

business, either by himself or in association with any other person.

Code 15: A Judge should not seek any financial benefit in the form of a
perquisite or privilege attached to his office unless it is available. Any doubt
on this behalf must be got resolved and clarified through the Chief Justice.

Code 16: Every Judge must at all times be conscious that he is under the
public gaze and there should be no act or omission by him which is
unbecoming of the high office he occupies and the public esteem in which
the office is held.

26
https://www.resourcedata.org/document/rgi-re-statement-of-values-of-judicial-life
 P a g e | 10

These are only the “Restatement of the Values of Judicial Life” and are not
meant to be exhaustive but illustrative of what is expected of a Judge.

(b) The Supreme Court reinforced these concepts in “Ram Pratap Sharma Vs.
Daya Nand”, where it issued a note of caution to the effect that it is proper
for a Judge not to accept any invitation and hospitality of any business or
commercial organization or any political party.27

(c) Being a judge, you have to confine yourself to judging and not foray into
activities which bring you into dealings with politicians. Nor must you run
commercial operations.

(d) Similarly, the judiciary established under the constitutional mandate and
judges who have to discharge their constitutional duties without fear or
favour, shall not be patronized by offering any special privileges and
largesse by any private organisation or by the government, as it will not
only blur objectivity on their part but also curtails their freedom in decision
making.

(e) Attention should also be drawn to the provisions of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988, especially Section 11. The Section penalises public
servants when they accept a property without consideration or
inadequate consideration from persons with whom they have or are likely
to have dealings in their official capacity.

IV. OBJECTIONABLE CONDUCT AND BEHAVIOUR BY THE CJI AND

OTHER JUDGES IN ESTABLISHING IAMC:

4.1 It could be seen that Justice Ramana has violated the Code of Conduct
enshrined in the “Restatement of Values of Judicial Life” adopted by the
Supreme Court, by venturing into a business activity of administering
arbitration and mediation for commercial matters by charging a fee, while
occupying his position as the Chief Justice of India and appointing two

27
AIR 1977 SC 809
 P a g e | 11

sitting Judges of the Supreme Court of his choice, as life trustees to

manage the affairs of the Centre according to his norms.

4.2 Apart from starting the centre Justice Ramana has also ventured to
promote the centre and solicit business for the centre by putting pressure
on Courts and Tribunals under his administration and also coercing lawyers
and clients to utilize the service of his centre by paying the fee and
charges. He also endeavoured on promotional activities in Dubai, Germany,
the UK and the USA publicising the centre and also misrepresenting it as if
it is an official ADR centre of the government or the Supreme Court and
started officially under the aegis of the Chief Justice of India. When the
fact remains that Justice Ramana will be in charge of the centre even after
he demits his office as the Chief Justice.

4.3 Justice Ramana has obtained large financial benefits from the government
of Telangana amounting to appx. Rs. 250 crores, by obtaining 5 acres of
land at Hi-Tech city. Any allocation of land by the government could be
done only by due process and by the procedure established under the
Alienation of State Lands Rules. All these due processes were not followed
by the government and the largesse was handed over to a newly
established centre with no previous experience. The Trust deed also
empowers the Trustees under clause 6(d) to sell, lease, mortgage or
dispose of any immovable assets belonging to the Trust. Thus it is not clear
as to under what condition the large extent of public property was
transferred to this newly formed Trust, especially in the background of his
close nexus with the ruling political party in Telangana.

4.4 This procedure was abhorred by the Government of India, which was
highlighted by the Attorney General of India, Sri. K.K. Venugopal, at the
Supreme Court in February 2022, in the case of “State of Telangana Vs.
Rao VBJ Chelikani”, where he addressed the issue of discretionary land
allotment in urban areas to MP, MLA and Judges; he stated these persons
should not be allowed to avail the benefit of Discretionary quota and that
the arbitrary allotment of land by the state government to individuals like
politicians, judges, bureaucrats in return for favours, must be prohibited.
 P a g e | 12

And most importantly this was addressed to the Bench comprising the CJI
Justice N.V. Ramana, Justice A.S. Bopanna and Justice Hima Kohli.

V. ENQUIRY INTO THE ALLEGED OBJECTIONABLE CONDUCT AND

CORRUPT PRACTICES:

5.1 By misusing the official post, if judges try to create a monopoly of

establishing and running arbitration and mediation centres running on
profit and pave pay for post-retirement plump business opportunity, it not
only degrades the values of judicial life but would amount to a direct act of
corruption. If the same act is done by a government doctor who tells a
patient before him, to do the treatment in a private hospital administered
by him or his close friends or relatives, probably the doctor would be
arrested under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Thus any act is an act of
corruption if it is made in exercise of his influence as a public authority to
obtain an undue advantage, financially and otherwise, for an institution
with which he has a close connection. (Section 11 of the PC Act).

5.2 This illegal act, if approved, will throw open a new corrupt practice, where
judges right from magistrate court to Supreme Court will now develop
private business during their official term and create safe post-retirement
facilities using their power and influence while in office.

5.3 The assumption that respect for the judiciary can be won by shielding
judges from criticism misjudges public opinion. An enforced silence, in the
name of preserving the dignity of the judiciary, would cause resentment,
suspicion and contempt, more than it would enhance respect. The rotten
elements in the judicial system should be exposed to improve the
credibility of the whole system. The Supreme itself in “Duda P.N. v. Shiv
Shankar P”28, observed that the contempt jurisdiction should not be used
by Judges to uphold their dignity. In the free market places of ideas,
criticism about the judicial system or the Judges should be welcomed, so
long as criticisms do not impair or hamper the “administration of justice”.

28
1988 (3) SCC 167
 P a g e | 13

5.4 In this context, it is worthy to remember the words of Lord Atkin: “Wise
Judges never forget that the best way to sustain the dignity and status of
their office is to deserve respect from the public at large by the quality of
their judgments, the fearlessness, fairness and objectivity of their
approach, and by the restraint, dignity and decorum which they observe in
their judicial conduct”.

5.5 The actions of Justice Ramana do not pertain to discharge of judicial duties
and therefore there is no bar to conduct any inquiry into these affairs. In
the above circumstances, we urge the Government of India to constitute a
high-level committee to conduct an inquiry into the above illegal acts of
Justice N.V. Ramana, including the illegal establishment of the
International Arbitration & Mediation Centre (IAMC) at Hyderabad and the
transfer of public land to the said centre and also frame appropriate
guidelines relating to the conduct of judges while in office and restraining
them from involving in private ventures and obtaining huge amounts of
public assets and monies, to restore the credibility of the system and
restore faith in the judicial system and courts and maintain the trust of
litigants in the Indian judicial system.

5.6 We also request the Comptroller and Auditor General of India to investigate
into matter since it involves a large scale misuse of public funds and assets
by the Government of Telangana overlooking procedure and propriety.

Dated this the 15th day of August 2022.

Sl.No Name of Signee Profession Address E-Mail

1. Sriram Panchu Senior E-110,16th Cross sriram.panchu@gmail

Advocate/ Street,Besant .com
Mediator Nagar, Chennai -
600090

2. Anil Xavier Advocate, Manimandir, anilxavierindia@gmail

Mediator, Kaloor,Cochin .com
Arbitrator 682017

3. Iram Majid Advocate, J.803 Aditya iram.majidadv@gmail

Mediator, Mega city .com
 P a g e | 14

Arbitrator vaibhav Khand

Indirapuram
Ghaziabad
201014

4. Mathew P.J Mediator, B401,Shanti

Arbitrator Gardens, pjmathew17@gmail.c
Thoppil, om
Trikkakara,
Cochin 682021

5. Mohd Suboor Law student Faculty of Law, Mohammad.Suboor@

Jamia Millia yahoo.com
Islamia, New
Delhi

6. Prithvish Rajamani Advocate, 31, Rengas prithvish@tranlife.in

Mediator, Triyambhava,
Arbitrator Kalapatti Main
Road,
Coimbatore -
641014

7. A. Gunaseelan Advocate & No. S-1, Global agunaseelanadvocate

Mediator Nivas, Ricky @gmail.com
Garden 1st Main
Road, Selaiyur,
Chennai 600073

8. Devendra Singh LL.M. Student Jiwaji University dev7tomar@gmail.co

Tomar Gwalior m

9. Simi Varghese Law Graduate Villa No. 9, Sai simi.tharakan@yahoo

Tharakan Krupa Lalith .com
Valley,
Nirmalyam Lane
Vazhayila
Kallayam Road
Kallayam P.O.
East Mukkola,
Trivandrum
695043

10. Serafina Illyas Law Graduate Villa No. 9, Sai sera.illyas@gmail.co

Krupa Lalith m
Valley,
Nirmalyam Lane,
Trivandrum

11. Anand Sukumaran Advocate MP VIII/5, anand.s.ariyari@paria

 P a g e | 15

Mysore Road, tsolutions.com

Mananthavady,
Wayanad -
670645

12. Bagavad Eswar S Mediator 3EG Group, PO bagavad@3EGgroup.

Box: 241614, com
Dubai UAE

13. Poonam Joshi Lawyer/Media B -502, Shreeji poonammjoshii@gma

tor byArcade, Anand il.com
Mahal Road,
Adajan, Surat,
Gujarat 395009

14. K S Sarma Executive Maple', Indu kssarma@gmail.com

Educator & Fortune Fields
IIAM Gardenia, Phase
Accredited 13, KPHB
Mediator Colony, Near
Hitech City
Railway Station,
Kukatpally -
Hafeezpet Road,
Hyderabad

15. Kenneth Dias Mediator H. No. 97, Belloy kennly@rediffmail.co

Nuvem Salcete m.
Goa 403601

16. Wg Cdr T R Mohan Lawyer/ Old No.36, New trmohan61@hotmail.

Arbitrator/ No.81, Loco com
Mediator Scheme, 2nd
Street, Jawahar
Nagar, Chennai-
600082

17. Adv. Sonal Bagadia Mediator, LG/7,Xth Central adv.sonal@ymail.com

Lawyer Mall, Mahavir
Nagar, Kandivli
(West).

18. George Ninan Mediator Brookside House, georgeninan05@gmai

Kuzhimattom PO, l.com
Kottayam Dist,
Kerala 686533.
 P a g e | 16

19. Dr Shilpi Thapar Practising 407B, Pinnacle shilpi@shilpithapar.co

Company Business Park, m
Secretary/ Prahladnagar
Mediator/ Corporate Road,
Arbitrator Ahmedabad,
Gujarat 380015.

20. Seejo Architect, 8G, Enarc seejopurushothaman

Purushothaman Educationist, Apartment, @gmail.com
Mediator Marar Road,
Thrissur,
Kerala- 680001

21. Neena Khare Advocate/ A-209,Ekta Vihar neenakhare29@gmail

Mediator Opposite .com
Supteshwar
Ganesh Mandir
Jabalpur(M.P.)

22. Amin Merchant Internationally VASTU BANDRA aminmerchant@hotm

Accredited CHS LTD Flat no ail.com
Mediator and 1001/1002,
Negotiator 10th floor,
B.J.Road/ Pereira
Road,
Bandra West,
Mumbai -
400050

23. Sandhya Sharma Advocate/ 41, 3rd floor, sharma2596sandhya

Mediator Rashi @gmail.com
Apartments, Plot
3, Sector 7,
Dwarka, New
Delhi - 110075

24. Piyush Kumar Roy Law Student Manipal piyush79roy@gmail.c

University Jaipur om

25. Bojamma P.K Advocate Kodagu varunyaboju@gmail.c

Karnataka- om
571254

26. Syed Anwar Ali Advocate 25C/3, Maruti millenniumlegalsoluti

Cross Lane, Fort, ons@gmail.com
Mumbai 400001
 P a g e | 17

27. Khushi Goel Law Student Maharaja goelkhushi66@gmail.

Agrasen Institute com
of Management
Studies, IP
University Delhi

28. George. G. Advocate, 7BC,BCG ggp@lawyer.com

Poothicote Arbitrator and Midtown,
Mediator Panampilly Nagar
Cochin, Kerala

29. Brahm Datt Verma Advocate, S-236, Ground adv.bdverma@gmail.

Insolvency Floor, Uppal com
Professional Southend,
Sector-49,
Gurugram-
122018

30. M R Prasanna Advocate & 910, Brigade mrprasanna@gmail.c

Arbitrator Road, Bangalore om
560008

31. Krusch P Antony Advocate, Ernakulam- kruschlaw@gmail.co

Arbitrator & 682018 m
Mediator

32. Dr Vikas Sharma Advocate and N70/1 Sainik Advdrvx@gmail.com

Arbitrator Farms
New Delhi
110062

33. K. Amjath Khan Advocate & No.4/7, 12th drkhanlawyer@gmail.

Mediator Street, com
Nandanam
Extension,
Chennai -
600035

34. Vineet Kumar Mediator PO Box 584 krvineet@gmail.com

Manama,
Kingdom of
Bahrain

35. Manish Chadda Arbitrator Q. No. 1, manish.chadda@gmai

Gurudwara Sarai, l.com
Dr. Diwan Singh
Gurudwara,
Gurudwara Lane,
Port Blair.
744101
 P a g e | 18

36. Gopalakrishnan. B Advocate, Nandanam,Panth advgopalakrishnanb@

Arbitrator akathulane gmail.com
Kanattukara
Thrissur 680011

37. Balkrishna R Arbitrator 502, Nai Sai brkulkarni1@gmail.co

Kulkarni Prasad CHS Ltd. m
Vasudeo Balwant
Phadke Marg,
Mulund, Mumbai
- 400081.

38. Dr BS Chauhan Advocate, D-319 Vasant advocatebschauhan@

Mediator Apartment hotmail.com
Old Delhi Road,
Gurgaon 122001

39. Prasanthi Prasad Advocate, 4/182 Rajam kprasanthiprasad@g

Arbitrator Nagar. mail.com
Kovilambakkam.
Chennai 600129

40. Regimol Mathew Mediator, Life 2/279, Near regimolnoble@gmail.

skill Trainer Taluk Hospital, com
Kuravilangad,
Kerala, Pin
686633

41. Abdur Rahman Former Room No. 407 of abdurrahmanzibol@g

(Zeeball) Additional Sher-e-Bangla mail.com
Chief Bhaban,
Metropolitan Supreme Court
Magistrate, Bar Association
Advocate, Building, Dhaka,
Supreme Bangladesh
Court of
Bangladesh

42. Dr. Ramesh V.K Arbitrator Vandana, Civil ramesh.phd.upes@g

Station PO, mail.com
Kozhikode
673020

43. Shilpa Pratap Advocate & 204, Sai Elite, adv.shilpapratap@gm

Mediator Pimple Nilakh, ail.com
Pune,
Maharashtra
 P a g e | 19

44. Virender Singh Mediator 403, Cascade vsdahiya24@gmail.co

Dahiya Range, Heritage m
Estate,
Doddaballapur
road, Yelahanka,
Bengaluru,
Karnataka
560064

45. Varsha Joshi Arbitrator 204, Sai Elite, adv.varshajoshi@gma

Jagtap Dairy il.com
Chowk, Near
Savitribai Phule
Garden, Pimple
Nilakh, Pune-
411027

46. Shobhit Mishra Advocate, House No adv.shobhitmishra@g

Mediator 516,517, Aman mail.com
Nagar, Mowa,
Raipur (C.G.)
Pin code 492007

47. Parvez Ishaq Khan Advocate, F.P.NO. 20 parvez.khan@legalint

Mediator behind Taluka egrity.in
Police Station,
Old Thane Naka
Road, Panvel,
Navi Mumbai

48. M T Thacker Advocate, E-6/04 sector advmohan@mtthacke

Mediator 1,Vashi Navi r.com
Mumbai-400 703

49. J. Venkitachalam Advocate, Vadakkupattu jvchalam@gmail.com

Mediator Main Road,
Medavakkam,
Chennai 600100

50. T.R. Mohan Advocate, IPR Old no.36 New trmohan61@gmail.co

consultant no. 81, loco m
scheme, 2nd
street Jawaharlal
Nagar, Chennai
600082

51. V Sowmya Arbitrator 19B Naickammar vsowmya@lntecc.com

Street
Chennai 89
 P a g e | 20

52. Jayan Nair Advocate, 1103 D4, Lok jayancs@gmail.com

Arbitrator and Upvan Phase 2,
Mediator Off Pokhran
Road 2, Vasant
Vihar, Thane
West 400610

53. Mandira Mitra Advocate, K 37 D, Kailash mandiramitra@gmail.

Mediator Colony, com
New Delhi
110048

54. Geeta Ramaseshan Advocate, 111 A, High Geetaramaseshan@g

Mediator Court Chambers, mail.com
Chennai 600104

55. Jaya Chadha Arbitrator B 601 Jasper jayasep1975@gmail.c

Building, om
Hiranandani
Estate, Thane
West 400607

56. Ashutosh Marathe Advocate B22, Mitradham, partners@maratheass

Jagannath ociates.com
Bhatankar Marg,
Parel, Mumbai
400012

57. Shine P Sasidhar Mediator, O/1A,Jangpura shineonatt@gmail.co

Advocate in ext., New Delhi- m
Supreme 110014
Court of India

58. Bader Sayeed Advocate, III A High Court Bader.sayeed@gmail.

Mediator Chambers, High com
Court,
Chennai 600104

59. Nitin N Jadhav Mediator Marvel West, linknitinjadhav@gmail

House No. 130, .com
Beed Bypass,
Aurangabad-
431007

60. Akshat Garg Law Student NRI City Center Akshatgargseven@g

Greater Noida - mail.com
201310
 P a g e | 21

61. Hamida Siddiqui Advocate & Ring road 2 hamidasiddique64@g

Mediator Bilaspur mail.com
Chhattisgarh
Pin 495001

62. Dr Siddhi Mediation 510, Edcon mindfullmcchc7@gma

Prabhukonkar Naik Consultant Mindspace, il.com
and Counselor Behind Campal
Trade Centre
Near Kala
Academy
Panjim, Goa-
403001

63. Seema Advocate, Kaloor, Seemaparthasarathy

Mediator Ernakulam @gmail.com
682017

64. Sanjeev Ahuja Mediator, B-231 Saraswati SSMR.AHUJA@GMAIL

Resolution Vihar, Pitam .COM
Professional, Pura, New Delhi
Arbitrator 110034

65. Md Wasiuddin Advocate No.5, Jan lawyerwasim@gmail.c

Dadni Mohammad om
Street,
Anna Salai,
Chennai 600 002