JUDGMENT :

Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.

1. The Arbitration Petitions have been filed under section 9 of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for interim measures of protection. The facts are identical in both the matters and learned counsel appearing for the parties have relied on the same propositions of law. Hence both the Arbitration Petitions are being disposed of by this judgment.

2. The petitioner seeks an injunction on the respondent no 1 from dealing with or disposing of the assets under a Master Facility Agreement dated 19th January, 2020 and a Settlement Agreement dated 17th July, 2021. Prayer (i) of the application does not give the date of the Master Facility Agreement.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondent no. 1 is bound by the Master Facility Agreement dated 19th January, 2020 executed between SREI Equipment Finance Limited and the respondent no. 1 with regard to the financial assistance given by SREI to the respondent no. 1 of Rs.6,72,60,000/-. Counsel submits that the respondent no. 1 paid 14 instalments out of 34 instalments under the agreement and hypothecated assets for the loan. The Master Facility Agreement was thereafter assigned by SREI to the petitioner in satisfaction of SREI’s dues of Rs.70,97,70,999/- to the petitioner. The assignment was made in the form of a “Settlement Agreement” executed between SREI and the petitioner on 17th July, 2021.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent takes a point of maintainability of the application on the ground that the respondent no. 1 is not a party to the Settlement Agreement between the petitioner and SREI and that the petitioner cannot hence seek to invoke both the arbitration clauses contained in the Master Facility Agreement and the Settlement Agreement. Counsel submits that there is no privity of contract between the petitioner and the respondent no. 1 and thus there cannot be a composite reference. Counsel further submits that the petitioner has only been given the collection rights in respect of the receivables and disputes that the Master Facility Agreement had not been assigned in favour of the petitioner. It is further argued that the arbitration clause has to be specifically incorporated which has not been done in the present case. Counsel submits that a general reference to the Master Facility Agreement is not sufficient to incorporate the arbitration clause under section 7(5) of the 1996 Act.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the definitions of “receivable”, “security”, “security documents” and “underlying agreement” of the Settlement Agreement to urge that the assignment was done under clause 9.7 of the Master Facility Agreement whereby SREI had the right at its discretion to transfer its rights, benefits and obligations under the Agreement to any person without notice to the borrower (the respondent no. 1) and that SREI had in any event sent an intimation to the respondent no. 1 about the assignment by a letter dated 17th July, 2021. Counsel submits that as signatory to the Master Facility Agreement, the respondent no. 1 had agreed to the assignment and further that the respondent no. 1 had paid 3 installments to the petitioner after execution of the Settlement Agreement. Counsel relies on these payments as implied consent on the part of the respondent no. 1 to the assignment of the agreement.

6. Before the Court proceeds to decide on the issue of maintainability, the following facts appear to be undisputed. The respondent no. 1 had availed of a loan from SREI Equipment Financial Limited for purchase of certain equipment by way of a Master Facility Agreement dated 19th January, 2020. Thereafter, the petitioner executed a Settlement Agreement with SREI on 17th July, 2021. The respondent no. 1 is not a party to the Settlement Agreement. The petitioner and SREI entered into the Settlement Agreement for the purpose of assignment of dues of SREI to the petitioner.

7. Clause 9.11 of the Master Facil