The main legal point established in the judgment is the Court's authority to appoint a substitute arbitrator under section 15 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 when the mandate of the arbitrator is terminated.

1. By consent of parties, facts being identical in all these matters, were heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment.

2. I will summarize the facts in Arbitration Petition No.104 of 2017. By this petition filed under section 14 and 15 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, (for short “the said Act”) the petitioner seeks substitution and/or appointment and/or replacement of the erstwhile arbitrator. On 28th November, 2005, the parties filed a consent terms in Summons for Judgment No.186 of 2005 in Summary Suit No.2042 of 2003. The parties agreed to refer the disputes in the suit to the sole arbitration of Shri Justice A.B. Palkar, a former Judge of this Court. The said suit was disposed of in terms of the consent terms filed by the parties. In view of the demise of Shri Justice A.B. Palkar, a former Judge of this Court, by an order dated 20th November, 2009, Shri Justice Anoop V. Mohta passed in Arbitration Petition No.685 of 2009 appointed Shri Justice S.S. Parkar, a former Judge of this Court as sole arbitrator in place of the erstwhile arbitrator Shri Justice A.B. Palkar, a former Judge of this Court. The said Shri Justice S.S. Parkar also refused to act as an arbitrator and vacated office. By an order dated 19th December, 2014, Shri Justice S.J. Kathawalla in Arbitration Application No. 271 of 2014 along with connected matters appointed Mr. Ashish Kamat, a counsel of this Court by consent of parties.

3. The petitioner thereafter requested the learned arbitrator to fix a date for holding a preliminary meeting. The date was fixed by the learned arbitrator. The learned arbitrator however, could not remain present on the date fixed by him. The petitioner thereafter requested for fixing another date before the learned arbitrator vide letter dated 16th February, 2015. Learned arbitrator did not enter upon the reference. The petitioner thereafter filed separate arbitration petitions inter-alia praying for filling up of the vacancy arising out of the resignation of Mr. Ashish Kamat, the erstwhile arbitrator. By an order dated 25th October, 2016 passed by this Court, those petitions were disposed of with liberty to issue notices to the respondent for appointment of an arbitrator and to file a fresh petition after expiry period of 30 days notice period.

4. The petitioner through his advocate issued a fresh notice on 29th November, 2016 to the respondent requesting the respondent to appoint an arbitrator within 30 days from the date of receipt of invoking sections 14 and 15 of the said Act.

5. The respondent vide their advocate's letter dated 27th December, 2016, responded to the said notices and raised an issue of limitation in respect of the claims and refused to appoint an arbitrator. The petitioners thus filed these seven petitions invoking sections 14 and 15 of the said Act seeking substitution and/or appointment and/or replacement of the erstwhile arbitrator.

6. Ms. Sadh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner invited my attention to various orders passed by this Court in various petitions filed by the petitioner for substitution of the arbitrator appointed by this Court on 28th November, 2005 in Summons for Judgment No.186 of 2005. She submits that by an order dated 28th November, 2005, this Court appointed Shri Justice A.B. Palkar, a former Judge of this Court in the consent terms filed by the parties in the Summons for Judgment. In view of the sad demise of Shri Justice A.B. Palkar, a former Judge of this Court, this Court by consent of parties on 20th November, 2009 appointed Shri Justice S.S. Parkar, a former Judge of this Court as the sole arbitrator. The said learned arbitrator also resigned. The petitioner thereafter filed the applications under sections 14 and 15 of the said Act which were disposed of by an order dated 19th December, 2014, appointing Mr. Ashish Kamat, a counsel of this Court as an arbitrator. She submits that since the learned arbitrator has resigned, the vacancy has