1. By these petitions filed under section 11 and section 15(2) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short hereinafter referred to as Act) the applicants seek an order and direction to substitute the sole arbitrator. The facts of all the aforesaid mattes are identical and the issue involved being common, all the above matters were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order.

2. Both the parties have addressed this court on the basis of the facts in Arbitration (L) No. 49 of 2013 and the same are therefore, summarized as under:

(a) The applicant is engaged in providing physiotherapy, physical fitness/health services etc. for sports items in tournaments/camps. etc. On 23rd January, 2008 the parties entered into ICL Professional Services Agreement (for short referred to as “Agreement”). The agreement was valid for the period of three years. According to applicant, sum of US $ 26,2904 is outstanding and payable by the respondent to the applicant. On 20th October, 2011, the applicant filed Company Petition (13 of 2012) under section 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 in this court against the respondent for winding up. By an order dated 29th June, 2012, this court disposed of the said Company Petition and other similar Company Petitions filed by the other applicants on similar terms. By consent of parties, this court directed the respondent to deposit an amount of Rs.7,13,475/-in this court within the period of six weeks and referred the disputes between the parties which were subject matter of the said petition to the sole arbitration of Dr. Birendra Saraf and directed the learned arbitrator to make endeavour to pass his award within the period of six months from the date of the said order. Pursuant to the said order, the respondents have deposited the amount as directed in this court.

(b) By letter dated 5th October, 2012, the applicant through his advocate addressed a letter to Dr. Birendra Saraf informing him about the order dated 29th June, 2012 passed by this court and requested him to fix preliminary meeting. By letter dated 21st November, 2012, Dr. Birendra Saraf informed the applicant's advocate that he had represented and continues to represent the respondent company before this court and various other forums and requested the applicant to inform if the applicant would have any objection to his acting as arbitrator in the light of the said disclosure. A copy of the said letter was also forwarded to the respondent's advocate.

(c) By letter dated 29th November, 2012 the applicants through his advocate expressed his objection to Dr. Birendra Saraf acting as an arbitrator and requested to take a note of the same and to inform the applicants accordingly. By letter dated 1st December, 2012, Dr. Birendra Saraf informed the parties through their respective advocates that in view of the objection raised by the applicants, vide letter dated 29th November, 2012, he had resigned as Arbitrator in the matters.

(d) By letter 4th December, 2012 the applicant through his advocate, suggested names of five counsel practicing in this court as arbitrator and requested the respondent to give its consent for appointing anyone out of the same as arbitrator in place of Dr. Birendra Saraf.

(e) The respondent through its advocate's letter dated 4th December, 2012 to the applicant's advocate, invited attention of the applicant to clause 21 of the agreement and informed that in the light of clause 21 of the said agreement, the respondent has appointed Justice A.D. Mane, Former Judge of this court as sole arbitrator for the proposed arbitration between the applicant and respondent.

(f) The applicant through his advocate's letter dated 5th December, 2012 informed that the applicant did not consent to the unilateral appointment of Justice A.D. Mane as substituted arbitrator and the applicant was in process of taking out appropriate proceedings for appointment of the substituted arbitrator in accordance with the provisions