Joint applications for arbitration under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 are not maintainable when individual agreements exist, necessitating separate proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

2. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties.

3. Present Application is filed for appointment of sole Arbitrator in accordance with the terms of Clause-15 of the Agreement for conducting an arbitration between the Applicants and the Respondents under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the “Act of 1996”), on account of absolute failure of the Respondent Authorities to acknowledge the requests made to them for appointment of Arbitrator. The said request for appointment of an Arbitrator is arising on account of illegal deduction made by the Respondents from the amount due and payable to the Applicants for supply of cotton bales.

4. It is submitted that the Applicants are owners of cotton Ginning and Pressing factories and Respondent No.1 is a body registered under the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 having it’s head office and an Administrative offices and its addresses as mentioned in cause title. It is further contention of the Applicants that the Applicants are owners of cotton ginning-pressing factories with whom, as per usual practice and in ordinary course of business, the Respondents of respective Zones are executed Agreement on behalf of Respondent No.1 for season 2019-20 and 2020-21. All the Applicants i.e. ginning- pressing factory owners have individually signed the Agreements with the respective Respondents and all the agreements are identical by all means. In September 2021, the Respondents addressed notices for recovery of amounts for the alleged losses suffered by the Respondents on the ground of discovery of Trash in cotton beyond permissible limits. It was alleged that sample cotton drawn from the premises of Ginning-Pressing factories of the Applicants was tested in laboratories had revealed presence of trash in cotton beyond permissible limits. Therefore, Applicants were informed about recovery of amount either by way of deduction to that extent from the actual amounts payable to them or by way of imposing fresh recoveries of amounts to that extent. Though the notices are sent individually, they are exactly identical ones except for the figure of amounts of deduction.

5. It is submitted that the present Applicants along with one Shree Ganesh Agro Industries, Parbhani (who was the Applicant No.1) had filed a similar application before this Court for appointment of arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Act of 1996 bearing Misc. Civil Application No.278/2022. This Court vide order dated 03.02.2023 was pleased to allow the application on behalf of applicant Ganesh Agro Industries, Parbhani and appointed an arbitrator. In view thereof many of the Applicants in the present Application wrote to the Respondents stating the fact that an arbitrator is appointed in a similar matter and requested the Respondents to appoint an arbitrator for resolving their disputes. Respondents refused to appoint an arbitrator stating that issue involved in the ongoing arbitration proceedings of M/s Ganesh Agro Services is based upon a separate issue. As such, the Applicants prayed for appointment of an arbitrator.

6. Learned Counsel for the Respondents raised preliminary objection that the Application is not maintainable in view of the various orders passed by this Court in Misc. Civil Application No.278/2022. It is submitted that there cannot be any common application for appointment of arbitrator as each individual has entered into a separate agreement with the Respondents. My attention is drawn to the order passed by this Court dated 30.01.2023 in Misc. Civil Application No.278/2022, which is reproduced as under :

“Heard.

2. On 27.01.2023, I had recorded the following submission of the learned Counsels for the parties.

“Mr. Samarth, learned senior counsel raises a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the present application, which is at the behest of 87 different individuals,