JUDGMENT :

Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.

1. The petitioners in all the 4 matters have filed applications for extending the mandate of the learned Sole Arbitrator for concluding the reference and alternatively, for appointment of a substitute arbitrator for conclusion of the arbitral reference arising out of an arbitral agreement dated 1st August, 2018. Since all the 4 applications involve identical points of law, namely, termination of the arbitrator’s mandate and substitution of a new arbitrator, the Court proposes to dispose of the applications in the following manner.

2. The facts presented to the Court are that the petitioner invoked the arbitration clause in terms of an arbitration agreement contained in a Agreement to License dated 1st August, 2018. The respondent accepted the petitioner’s nomination of arbitrator but disputed the significance of the letter dated 9th May, 2020 by which the arbitral reference was commenced. The respondent questioned the jurisdiction of the learned arbitrator in an application filed under section 16 of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The petitioner on the other hand claimed license fees which remained due and payable by the respondent. The