V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.

IA 2101/2016 in O.M.P. (COMM) 42/2016 and IA 2105/2016 in O.M.P. (COMM) 43/2016 (Under Section 151 CPC seeking condonation of delay in re-filing the present petitions)

Pursuant to the directions of the Court on February 12, 2016, the petitioner had filed an affidavit of the authorized representative justifying the delay in re-filing. On a reading of the contents of the affidavit, the delay in re-filing the petitions, is condoned. The IAs 2101/2016 in O.M.P. (COMM) 42/2016 and IA 2105/20-16 in O.M.P. (COMM) 43/2016 are allowed. Applications stand disposed of.

O.M.P. (COMM) 42/2016 & O.M.P. (COMM) 43/2016

1. The challenge in these two petitions is to the order dated October 23, 2015 passed by the learned Arbitrator dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Section 12 and 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in two Arbitration Claim Petition no. 1/2015 titled SVOGL Oil Gas and Energy Ltd. vs. M/s Shiv Vani Oil and Gas Exploration Services Ltd. and Arbitration Claim Petition no.3/2015 titled Comet Overseas Pvt. Ltd. vs. Shiv Vani Oil and Gas Exploration Services Ltd. wherein, the petitioner is defendant No.2.

2. There is no dispute that the present petitions have been filed by the petitioner under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The learned counsel for the respondent had taken a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the petitions under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the following judgments in support of his submission on the maintainability of the petitions under section 34:-

(i) 94 (2001) DLT 636 titled Rajnigandha Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. vs. Chand Construction Co. & Anr.

(ii) 76 (1998) DLT 98 titled Union of India & Anr. Vs. East Coast Boat Builders & Engineers Ltd.

(iii) (2001) 3 MLJ 820 titled Tamil Nadu Water Supply & Drainage Board vs. Aban Construction

(iv) 1998 (4) ALLMR 544 titled Kapal R. Mehra & Ors. vs. Bhupendra M. Bheda & Ors.

(v) Aravali Infrapower Ltd. vs. Michigan Engineers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (Arb. A. (Comm) 3/2015 passed in judgment dated January 27, 2016 by this Court.

(vi) Bharat Vasudev Khater & Ors. vs. Religare Finvest Ltd. (Aarb. No.A. (Comm) No.5/2016 in judgment dated February 1, 2016.

(vii) Lexicon Finance Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors. ILR 2002 Karnataka 2050

3. On the other hand, Mr. Narula would submit that the present petitions under Section 34 of the Act are maintainable inasmuch as by the impugned order, the learned Arbitrator has finally determined an issue of the maintainability of the proceedings qua the petitioner by rejecting its plea. He would point out the agreement dated August 8, 2013 executed between M/s Shiv Vani Oil and Gas Exploration Services Ltd., M/s Comet Overseas Pvt. Ltd. and the petitioner herein to state that the relevant clause of arbitration i.e. clause 13 contemplates reference of dispute between the parties therein. The petitioner herein even though signatory to the agreement is not a party as is clear from the presence of the stipulation “as the context may require, the supplier and the “buyer/service, receiver” are hereinafter collectively refer to as parties and individually as party”. The reference as “parties” is to the “supplier” and the “buyer/service receiver” and not the “confirming party” which is the petitioner herein. According to him the parties have agreed that only in the case of a dispute between the parties, the matter needs to be referred to the Arbitration. He would also state even if there is dispute between the respondent and the petitioner herein, the same needs to be resolved by a Civil Court only. Hence, the proceedings before the learned Arbitrator are corum-non judice and need to be rejected. It is his submission that precisely for that reason the petitioner herein had filed an application before the learned Arbitrator challenging his jurisdiction which culminated in the impugn