IMPORTANT POINTS
Ratio decidendi has to be inferred from treading the whole judgment.
A judgment should not be interpreted as statute.
In an application u/s 11(6) of 1996 Act the Designate Judge should not decide issues on merit. He should leave them to the arbitrator.

Dipak Misra, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. In Government of Andra Pradesh and others v. A. P. Jaiswal and others, AIR 2001 SC 499 a three-Judge Bench has observed thus:- "Consistency is the cornerstone of the administration of justice. It is consistency which creates confidence in the system and this consistency can never be achieved without respect to the rule of finality. It is with a view to achieve consistency in judicial pronouncements, the Courts have evolved the rule of precedents, principle of stare decisis etc. These rules and principle are based on public policy..."

3. We have commenced our opinion with the aforesaid exposition of law as arguments have been canvassed by Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel for the appellants, with innovative intellectual animation how a three-Judge Bench in Chloro Controls India Private Limited v. Seven Trent Water Purification Inc. and others, (2013) 1 SCC 641 has inappositely and incorrectly understood the principles stated in the major part of the decision rendered by a larger Bench in SBP & Company v. Patel Engineering Ltd. and another, (2005) 8 SCC 618 and, in resistance, Mr. Harish Salve and Dr. A.M. Singhvi, learned senior counsel for the respondent, while defending the view expressed later by the three-Judge Bench, have laid immense emphasis on consistency and certainty of law that garner public confidence, especially in the field of arbitration, regard being had to the globalization of economy and stability of the jurisprudential concepts and pragmatic process of arbitration that sparkles the soul of commercial progress. We make it clear that we are not writing the grammar of arbitration but indubitably we intend, and we shall, in course of our delineation, endeavour to clear the maze, so that certainty remains "A Definite" and finality is 'Final'.

4. The present appeal, by special leave, is directed against the judgment and order dated 22.7.2013 passed by the learned Judge, the designate of the Chief Justice of the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, in Arbitration Application No. 24 of 2012 whereby and whereunder, while dealing with an application preferred under Section 11(5) and (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for brevity "the Act"), has repelled the submission of the appellant herein, the respondent in the original proceedings, that the disputes raised by the applicant, being excepted matters, were squarely covered within the ambit of clause 9.3 of the agreement and hence, it was only to be referred to an expert for resolution and not to an arbitrator and, further addressing the issue on merits, opined that as the disputes are not covered under the subject-matter of billing disputes that find place in clause 9.3 of the agreement, the parties are not under obligation to refer the matter to the expert, and, accordingly, called for the names from both the parties and taking note of the inability expressed by the counsel for the respondents therein, appointed an arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes that have arisen between the parties.

5. Regard being had to the narrow compass of the controversy that has emanated for consideration before this Court, we need not dwell upon the factual matrix in extenso. Suffice it to state that the appellant No. 1 is a company carrying on business in generation of power. The respondent owns 49% equity of the appellant No. 1 company and the appellant No. 2 owns 51% equity of the appellant No. 1 company. The appellant-company had entered into two agreements with the respondent for supply of power to the respondent. The first agreement, namely, a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) was entered into on 10.2.2005 and the second agreement of similar nature was entered into on 1.11.2007 for supply of power.

In course of subsistence of the agreements dispute arose between the parties relating to amounts that is due and payable. The appellants treated the dispute raised to be a "billing dispute" and sought to appoint an expert in accordanc