IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Decision by Arbitral Tribunal that contract is null and void shall not entail ipso jure invalidity of arbitration clause.
(2) There is no legal impediment to enforceability of arbitration agreement pending payment of stamp duty on substantive contract.
(3) Matters which are still pending at a pre-appointment stage, cannot be left hanging until larger Bench settled the issue.

JUDGMENT :

Bela M. Trivedi, J.

1. All these three Arbitration petitions filed by the petitioner under Section 11(6) read with Section 11(12) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as Arbitration Act, 1996), seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes arising out of the three agreements executed between the parties, being intrinsically connected with each other were heard together, and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. The bare facts germane for deciding these petitions may be stated as under:-

(i) The petitioner is a company incorporated in the British Virgin Islands, engaged in the business of providing products and services for mud logging, drilling jars and fishing tools and exports of spare parts and oilfield equipments. The respondent is a company incorporated under the laws of Singapore and engaged in providing oilfield services, inter alia engaged in provision of well design, engineering, project management and well construction services to Vedanta Limited. (“Operator”).

(ii) In the year 2018, the respondent was considering the possibility of providing services to the Operator-Vedanta Ltd. at the Operator’s oil fields located in Rajasthan. The parties thereafter executed following three agreements:

a) Onshore Lease Agreement No. BHGE-DSAWDI- 2018 dated 20th November, 2018 for the lease of Rigs on a day-rate basis (“Lease Agreement”),

b) Onshore Drilling Service Agreement No. BHGE-DSA-WDI-2018 (INTL HOLDING BVI) dated 20th November, 2018 for drilling services (“Drilling Service Agreement”), and c) Agreement dated 05th February, 2019 to provide (a) mud logging; (b) drilling jars;

(c) fishing tools; and other services, with a full complement of crew, equipment and materials at the Oil Fields (“Onshore Service Agreement”). The said Agreement was amended vide the amendment agreements dated 22nd November, 2019 and dated 7th January, 2020.

(iii) The respondent on April 9, 2020 issued three letters (identical) to the petitioner terminating the said three agreements. Pursuant to the said Termination Letters, the petitioner on April 13, 2020 informed the respondent of its obligation to pay the amount equivalent to the residual value of the “call out orders” in terms of the Agreements. However, the respondent denied to make payments to the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter issued three notices all dated December 18, 2020 invoking the arbitration clause contained in the respective three agreements raising its claims against the respondent.

(iv) The respondent in response to the said three Arbitration Notices gave a common reply on January 17, 2021 raising contentions inter alia that the stamp duty was not paid on the agreements and therefore, consequences would follow as per the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958. The respondent however made a proposal in the said letter for referring the disputes under the Agreements to Mediation. The respondent also made proposal for consolidation of the disputes under the Agreements and for referring the disputes for adjudication by a sole arbitrator, consolidating into a single arbitration. The respondent however, did not agree to any of the names of arbitrators suggested by the petitioner, and reserved its right to propose the names of arbitrators.

(v) On January 29, 2021, the petitioner agreed to the respondent’s suggestion to refer the disputes to the Mediation. However, the Mediation having failed, the petitioner vide the Letter dated 1st September, 2021 agreed for the consolidation of disputes under the three agreements i.e., the Onshore Service Agreement, Lease Agreement and Drilling Service Agreement, to be heard by a sole arbitrator in one single arbitration, and further suggested two names of arbitrators. The petitioner in the alternative suggested that the Mumbai Centre of International Arbitration (“MCIA”) as the appointing authority under Rule 7.8 of MCIA Rules, 2016 may appoint a sole arbitrator in the Consolidated Arbit