Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996- s. 5, 8, 11(4), (6) and 16, 45 - Application for appointment of arbitrator and constitution of the arbitral tribunal - Maintainability of - Foreign Company-petitioner entering into an agreement with Organising Committee, CWG-respondent for providing certain services - Disputes over payment - Foreign Company invoking arbitration clause - Objections by respondent that petitioner did not follow dispute resolution mechanism, it engaged in corrupt, fraudulent or coercive practices, rendering the agreement void ab initio; criminal proceedings were going on in trial court, thus arbitration and criminal proceedings would lead to conflicting conclusions - Held: Arbitration application is maintainable - It cannot be said that since a criminal case has been registered against the Chairman of the Organising Committee and some other officials of the petitioner, the Supreme Court would have no jurisdiction to make a reference to arbitration - Whenever contract is said to be void-ab-initio, the Courts exercising jurisdiction u/ss. 8 and 11 are not rendered powerless to refer the disputes to arbitration - No inherent risk of prejudice to any of the parties in permitting arbitration to proceed simultaneously to the criminal proceedings - In an eventuality where award is rendered by arbitral tribunal, and criminal proceedings result in conviction rendering the underlying conract void, necessary plea can be taken on the basis of the conviction to resist the execution/enforcement of the award, If the matter is not referred to arbitration and criminal proceedings result in an acquittal leaving no ground for claiming that underlying contract is void or voidable, it would be undesirable delaying the arbitration - On facts, balance of convenience tilted more in favour of permitting the arbitration proceedings to continue rather than to bring the same to a grinding halt - Thus, Arbitral Tribunal constituted, nominating second arbitrator and Chairman of the Arbitral Tribunal.