As per case facts, the petitioner filed petitions under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking the appointment of an arbitrator to resolve disputes arising from an ... agreement for the construction of water supply distribution network projects initiated by the Bhopal Municipal Corporation. The question arose whether an arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, could be appointed, or if arbitration should instead be conducted as per the MP Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983, which establishes a separate statutory Tribunal. The petitioner argued that while the contract falls under the definition of 'works contract' as per the 1983 Act, the Municipal Corporation does not qualify as a 'public undertaking' within its scope, especially considering its self-governing status under constitutional articles, thus allowing for appointment under the 1996 Act. Finally, the Court, after reviewing precedents and extensively analyzing the MP Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, concluded that the Municipal Corporation operates under substantial control of the State Government across all its management and functioning aspects. Consequently, it was held that the Municipal Corporation is a 'public undertaking' under Section 2(g) of the Adhiniyam, 1983. Therefore, the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, were deemed inapplicable to the contract in question, and the petitions for arbitrator appointment under Section 11(6) of the 1996 Act were dismissed, granting the petitioner the liberty to approach the Tribunal under the State Adhiniyam of 1983, subject to limitation laws.