V.KAMESWAR RAO, J.

1. These five petitions have been filed by Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. under Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Act” in short). These petitions were disposed of by this Court vide order dated August 20, 2001, which order was challenged by the respondent herein initially before the Division Bench of this Court by way of a Writ Petition No.7226/2000, whereby the Division Bench had dismissed the writ petition vide order dated May 09, 2002.

2. The order dated May 09, 2002 was challenged by the respondent before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1389/2003, whereby the Supreme Court vide its order dated April 22, 2009 set aside the impugned order of the High Court and remanded back the petitions to the learned Chief Justice for deciding the case expeditiously in the light of decision of the Supreme Court in the case of SBP & Co. vs. Patel Engineering Ltd. & Anr. 2005 (8) SCC 618.

3. In these petitions it is the case of the petitioner that certain disputes have arisen and as per the arbitration clause contained in the agreements the petitioner had appointed Justice V.A. Mohata (Retired), former Chief Justice of Orissa High Court as its nominee Arbitrator. A request was made to the respondent to appoint its arbitrator. However, the respondent did not appoint the arbitrator and took various objections with regard to invocation of arbitration clause by the petitioner.

4. I note that the prayer in these petitions was for appointment of an Arbitrator and/or Arbitral Tribunal and reference of the claims/disputes of the petitioner.

5. The common facts in all the petitions are, that 26 contracts have been entered into by the predecessors in interest of the petitioner like National Hydroelectric Power Corporation (NHPC), National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC), North Eastern Electricity Power Corporation (NEEPCO) prior to March, 1988 with the predecessor in interest of the respondent namely SAE (India) Ltd., which name has been changed to RPG Transmissions Ltd. (now called as KEC International Ltd.).

6. By an Act of Parliament namely, Act No.24 of 1993 the transmission lines inclusive of contracts entered into by the aforesaid three organizations stood transferred to and vested in Law to the petitioner. The petitioner’s case is, it was given to believe by the respondent that the fabrication of tower parts was in law exigible to Excise Duty and accordingly the Excise Duty was being regularly paid by the respondent on the said fabrication of tower parts. It was on this basis that the petitioner made the payment year after year from 1982 to 1988 to the respondent. The petitioner’s stand is that without informing the petitioner, and keeping the petitioner totally in the dark, the respondent after depositing Excise Duty was also objecting to the imposition, levy and recovery of Excise Duty on the fabrication of tower parts with the Excise Authorities. Without notice to the petitioner and keeping the petitioner in the dark, the respondent regularly filed refund claims with the Excise Authorities. These refund claims were finally allowed by CEGAT and some of the appeals against the same eventually came to be dismissed in the Supreme Court sometime in April/May, 1996. It is also the petitioner’s case that in April, 1996 the petitioner wrote to the respondent calling upon the respondent to furnish details of central excise duties paid by the respondent and the refund in respect thereof obtained by the respondent vide notices dated April 30, 1996, May 22, 1996, June 10, 1996 and June 18, 1996 (till date full details have not been furnished). By reply dated June 10, 1996 the respondent claimed that the matter was an old one and sought time. However, the petitioner kept on calling upon the respondent to furnish the details. Thereafter vide letter dated August 16, 1996 the respondent admitted the totality of the refund received by the respondent “from Central Excise Authorities and legally du