The main legal point established in the judgment is that the respondent's appointment of the arbitrator within 30 days of the notice from the applicants did not constitute a default, and the defective notice issued by the applicants rendered the arbitration application not maintainable.

By this application filed under section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 the applicants seek appointment of the sole arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this application are as under :-

2. On 25th August, 2011, the parties entered into a Debenture Subscription-cum-Option Agreement on the terms and conditions recorded therein. On 28th September, 2011, the parties entered into Debenture Subscription-cum- Option Agreement on the terms and conditions recorded therein. Some of the applicants also executed Corporate Guarantee dated 28th September, 2011 read with Supplementary Corporate Guarantee. Dispute arose between the parties.

3. On 10th September, 2014, the respondent through its advocate issued a demand notice upon the applicants alleging various defaults under various agreements referred to aforesaid and called upon the applicants to pay a sum of Rs.64,96,23,799/- with further interest thereon and informed that if the amount was not paid within the time prescribed under the said notice, the said notice shall be treated as notice invoking arbitration against all the applicants under clause 16.4.2 of the two Debenture Subscription cum Option Agreement and under clause 24 of the Corporate Guarantee dated 25th August, 2011 and 28th September, 2011. The respondent also invoked the arbitration clause in the other corporate guarantee dated 28th September, 2011, Supplementary Corporate Guarantee dated 28th March, 2014 executed by few other applicants. In reply to the said letter dated 10th September, 2014, the applicants replied by their letter dated 16th June, 2015.

4. Sometimes in the month of November 2014, the respondent filed a petition under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against the applicants for interim measures. The applicants were served with the papers and proceedings in the said matter. Various interim orders are passed by this court in the said arbitration petition. The said arbitration petition was served upon the applicants by the respondent on 15th November, 2014.

5. On 16th June, 2015 the applicants through their advocates addressed a letter to the advocates representing the respondent alleging that the disputes and differences had arisen. By the said letter, the applicants invoked arbitration under the arbitration agreement recorded between the parties in various agreements and suggested the names of two former Supreme Court judges and a retired Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court for appointment of one of them as the sole arbitrator for adjudication of the disputes between the parties. In the said notice, the applicants made it clear that if the respondent did not revert to the said letter within seven days, the respondent would be constrained to adopt the appropriate legal proceedings.

6. The respondent by their advocates' letter dated 26th June, 2015 replied to the said notice dated 16th June, 2015 and denied the allegations made therein. The respondent denied that the respondent was not willing to refer the dispute before the arbitral tribunal or such alleged act of the respondent was in contravention to the contentions in the notice dated 10th September, 2014. The respondent invited the attention of the applicants to clause 16.4.2 of the Debenture Subscription-cum-Option Agreements dated 25th August, 2011 and 28th September, 2011 and conveyed that the respondent had right to appoint a sole arbitrator and the said right was not available to the applicant. The respondent conveyed that the respondent had every intention to appoint sole arbitrator and refer dispute to arbitration and pursuant thereto the respondent appointed Mr. B.A. Shelar, Ex. Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate as a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes amongst the parties.

7. The applicants through their advocates letter dated 27th June, 2015 replied to the said letter dated 26th June, 2015 of the respo