In which of the following cases, the Supreme Court has held that "The Arbitration and Conciliation Act", 1996 has been drafted according to the UNCITRAL model law. The Act and the model law are however not identical and therefore the judgements and the literature thereon cannot be taken as a guide to the interpretation of the Act, 1996:

Which of the Sections provide for the number of conciliations:

A. Section 63

B. Section 64

C. Section 65

D. Section 66

The provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 have to be interpreted being uninfluenced by the principles underlying the 1940 Act. This observation was laid down in

A. M.M.T.C. Ltd. v. Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd.

B. Sunderam Finance Ltd. v. N.E.P.C. Ltd.

C. Olympus Super structures Pvt. Ltd. v. Meera Vijay

D. Orma Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. Nissari Pvt. Ltd.

An Arbitration Agreement dated 1^st December, 2018 provides for reference of disputes to four arbitrators with two to be appointed by each of the parties. The Arbitration Agreement:

A. Is void and non-actionable

B. Is to be construed as being of reference of disputes to a sole arbitrator

C. Is to be construed as being of reference of disputes to three arbitrators

D. Is to be construed as being of reference of disputes to five arbitrators with the fifth arbitrator being nominated by the two arbitrators of each party

While considering the grant of interim measures, the Court may see whether:

A. The applicant has made prima facie case

B. The balance of convenience is in his favour

C. He would suffer irreparable injury if such measures are not granted

D. All of the above