JUDGMENT :

AKULA VENKATA SESHA SAI, J.

1. Since all these appeals raise common questions of law, this Court deems it appropriate and apposite to hear these matters together and dispose of these appeals by way of a common order.

2. The 1st respondent herein is the claimant in the arbitration proceedings, initiated under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter called as the "Act") in the year 2014. The appellant herein filed the present interlocutory applications before the learned Arbitrator under the provisions of Section 19 of the Act praying the learned Arbitrator to dismiss the claim statements on the ground that the Power of Attorney is not legally valid. The 1st respondent herein resisted the said interlocutory applications by filing counters. The learned Arbitrator by way of an order dated 16.7.2016 dismissed the said applications. The said order reads as hereunder:

"The petitioner under Section 19 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, for dismissing the claim statement as the Power of Attorney is not legally valid, on the ground that there is no material that the claimant company has issued any letter authorizing the Secretary of the Company to delegate the powers to others. In the claim petition it was asserted that the Asst. Credit Manager is competent to file the claim petition by virtue of the General Power of Attorney dated 18.10.2012. In Para 6 of the affidavit filed in support of this application it was asserted that the Power of Attorney is silent about the appointment filed in support of the claim petition. It cannot be disputed that the Resolution of the Board of Directors dated 9.11.2011 clearly authorizes the Company Secretary to delegate his powers to other officials. For the said reason I find no merits in the application and it is accordingly dismissed. Both parties are directed to proceed with the arbitration as the matter is getting delayed."

3. Assailing the validity and legal sustainability of the said orders passed by the learned Arbitrator, the appellant herein filed C.A.O. Ps. under Section 34 of the Act. The learned Special Judge for trial of Commercial Disputes-Commercial Division-cum-Principal District Judge, Visakhapatnam, by way of the orders under challenge in these appeals dismissed the said C.A.O. Ps. filed by the appellant herein. In the present appeals filed under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015, the said orders passed by the learned Principal District Judge are under challenge.

4. Heard Sri V.R.N. Prashanth, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of M/s. Indus Law Firm, for the appellants and Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, for Sri Kuncheam Maheswara Rao, learned Counsel for the 1st respondent and perused the material available on record.

5. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the orders, passed by the learned Principal District Judge, which are impugned in the present appeals, are highly erroneous, contrary to law and opposed to the very scheme and object of the Act. It is the further submission of the learned Counsel that the findings recorded by the learned Principal District Judge to the extent of non-compliance with the provisions of sub-section (5) of Section 34 of the Act and the aspect of authorisation to initiate the arbitration proceedings are neither sustainable nor tenable. It is the further submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants that the resolution dated 9.11.2011 sought to be pressed into service on behalf of the 1st respondent herein does not authorise the Agent mentioned therein to institute and start the proceedings and in the absence of the said power, question of delegating the power either to institute or to start the proceedings to the Assistant Credit Manager, Sri Peethala Jagadeesh does not arise and it is impermissible. In support of his submissions and contentions, learned Counsel for the appellants t