JUDGMENT :

SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, J.

1. The present application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1996 Act”) seeks a reference to arbitration in respect of a money claim arising out of three Purchase Orders between the parties.

2. An invocation under Section 21 of the 1996 Act was made by the petitioner on August 22, 2022, claiming an outstanding amount of money for furniture sold by the petitioner in terms of the said three contracts.

3. The respondent (SPCL) has raised an objection as to maintainability of the single Section 21 invocation as well as the single application under Section 11 of the 1996 Act on the ground that the dispute arises out of three separate purchase orders having distinct arbitration clauses, although the language of the clauses may be identical.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent argues that the dates of all three purchase orders were not the same, that each of them pertained to different zones and were independent contracts in their own right. As such, it is contended that the petitioner was required to take out three separate applications for reference under Section 11 of the 1996 Act, preceded by three separate invocations on each of the arbitration clauses in the separate contracts.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the identical language of the three arbitration clauses and submits that all the purchase orders emanated from a single parent contract between the respondent SPCL and its employer, the West Bengal Medical Services Corporation Ltd. The purchase orders, it is argued, are inextricably interlinked.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the demands made prior to the invocation and the purported e-mail replies thereto by the respondent, which allegedly relate to payment of a consolidated sum of money. It is argued that furniture was supplied by the petitioner under the purchase orders for eighteen Super Specialty Hospitals in West Bengal, under the contract entered into between the respondent and the employer.

7. Furthermore, it is contended, the payments were released in favour of the petitioner in a consolidated manner and even the respondent treated the outstanding dues as a consolidated claim in its communications.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on Duro Felguera, S.A. vs. Gangavaram Port Limited, (2017) 9 SCC 729, in which separate arbitrators were appointed for six separate arbitrable agreements, two for international commercial arbitration and four for domestic. However, the Supreme Court had observed that the arbitrators can be the same for the matters.

9. Learned counsel for the respondent, while relying on the same report, contends that separate arbitrators were directed to be constituted for each agreement.

10. The petitioner's counsel also cites NTPC Ltd. vs. SPML Infra Ltd. 2023 SCC Online SC 389, for the proposition that the primary inquiry under Section 11 (6) of the 1996 Act is about the existence and validity of an arbitration agreement and also in respect to the non-arbitrability of the dispute.

11. The Supreme Court also stressed the need for quicker and efficient resolution of disputes.

12. However, learned counsel for the respondents seeks to distinguish the said decision, by arguing that the propositions laid down therein do not help the petitioner in the present case.

13. There are, thus, two fulcrums of the present inquiry - the arbitration clauses and the nature of the dispute.

14. From the perspective of the first, we find that there are three separate arbitration clauses in three distinct purchase orders of different dates, although the language of the said clauses are identical. The clauses pertain to supply of different tranches of furniture to different areas, covering eighteen Super Specialty Hospitals in total.

15. If we search for commonalities among the agreements, we find that all the three purchase orders were issued by the respondent to the petition