K. Ramamoorthy, J.

( 1 ) SUIT No. 1808/95 is filed by East India Hotels Limited f the appointment of the arbitrator. Suit No. 622a/95 is filed by Jyoti Private Limited for appointment of the arbitrator.

( 2 ) I do not want to deal with in detail the contentions of the parties because the parties have agreed for the appointment of an arbitrator with a difference, Mr. H. L. Tikku, learned counsel appearing in suit No. 1808/95 stated that the arbitration proceedings should be distinct and separate in respect of the two suits while Mr. Rajiv Nayyar, learned counsel for the respondent, submitted that the same arbitrator can deal with the subject matter of the two suits.

( 3 ) THE petitioner in suit No. 1808/95 relies upon the agreement called loan Agreement dated 8th of August 1980 in and by which Jyoti Private Limited had agreed to pay certain amounts to the petitioner. The petitioner in S. No. 622a/95 relies upon hotel Operation Agreement between Jyoti Private Limited and East India Hotels Ltd. in and by which East India Hotels Ltd. agreed to carry on the hotel business in the premises of Jyoti Private Limited.

( 4 ) MR. H. L. Tikku. submitted that Jyoti Private Limited under the loan agreement owes East India Hotels Ltd. nearly Rs. 1,75,00,000. 00 (Rupees one crore and seventy lakhs) and under the agreement the premises of Jyoti Private Limited had created a charge in favour of East India Hotels Ltd. with reference to the premises. Mr. Rajiv Nayyar, learned counsel for Jyoti Private Limited submitted that East India Hotels Ltd. agreed to pay a minimum of Rs. 15 to 20 lakhs a month and there are other moneys due from East India Hotels Ltd. to Jyoti Private Limited which would be in the region of Rs. 3. 50 crores.

( 5 ) I shall first take up the question of appointment of arbitrator before dealing with the interim orders prayed for by East India Hotels Ltd. Mr. H. L. Tikku submitted that when the rights of parties flowing under the two agreements are distinct and separate and it is not permissible in law to appoint a single arbitrator to deal with the claims of the parties in the agreements. Mr. Rajiv Nayyar contended that the parties are the same and Jyoti Private Limited can always make a counter claim or set off against East India Hotels Ltd. and, therefore, there is nothing in law prohibiting a single arbitrator adjudicating on the disputes between the same parties.

( 6 ) I am not able to appreciate the contention of Mr. H. L. Tikku and in law there is absolutely no prohibition in a single arbitrator dealing with the rights of parties. Under the circumstances, as in the present case, therefore, I appoint the Hon ble Mr. Justice G. C. Jain (Retd.) as the arbitrator. He shall adjudicate on all the disputes between the parties under the Loan Agreement and as well as the Hotel Operation Agreement and all the claims and counter claims of the parties. He shall publish the award within four months from the date of entering upon the reference. The arbitrator shall be at liberty to fix his remuneration and other charges for conducting the arbitration proceedings.

LAS. 7955/95 and 9753/95

( 7 ) THE East India Hotels Ltd. prayed for injunction restraining Jyoti Private Limited from alienating or parting with possession of the Hotel premises pending the disposal of the arbitration proceedings. Mr. H. L. Tikku vehemently contended that once Jyoti Private Limited is permitted to have any arrangement with third parties to run the business the property value will get diminished and the charge created in the loan agreement will become useless and in the event of the arbitrator awarding an amount in favour of East India Hotels Ltd. it will not be in a position to recover any amount from Jyoti Private Limited.

( 8 ) MR. Rajiv Nayyar, per contra, contended that from a perusal of the balance sheet produced by Jyoti Private Limited it will be seen that the property value of the building owned by Jyoti Private Limited will be several crorcs and t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document