The main legal point established is that the court has the authority to appoint a substitute sole Arbitrator under Section 15(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the appointed Arbitrator must ensure compliance with the relevant provisions of the Act.

MANMOHAN SINGH, J.

1. The petitioners in the above said matter have filed petition under Section 14(1)(b) read with Section 15(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) to appoint any independent and neutral person as substitute sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes arisen between the parties under both MoUs dated 14th October, 2014.

2. The brief facts of the case are that admittedly on 2nd September, 2014 Railway Vikas Nigam Limited (RVNL) had invited a tender for construction of roadbed, bridges, supply of ballast, installation of track (excluding supply of rails), electrical (general electrification), signalling and telecommunication works in Ahmedabad Division of Western Railway, Gujarat, India in two packages.

3. The petitioner No. 1 and 2 along with the respondent signed two independent MoUs dated 14th October, 2014 for Package-I and Package-II respectively in the format prescribed under the tender conditions and formed a Joint Venture by the name of JMC-KPTL-MRTS (JV) for submission of bids for both Package-I and Package-II of the tender floated by RVNL. As per the MoU, the petitioner No.1 was the lead member of the Joint Venture. The said MoUs contained an arbitration clause i.e. Clause 13 therein.

4. The petitioners filed a petition being OMP (I) No.142/2015 on 6th April, 2015 under Section 9 of the Act before this Court against the respondent for certain interim reliefs.

5. The petitioners on 6th July, 2015 also invoked arbitration under Clause 13 of the MoUs dated 14th October, 2014 and nominated Mr.Gopal Jain, Senior Advocate as Sole Arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the parties. The respondent replied to the said notice and initially did not agree to the appointment of Mr.Gopal Jain as Sole Arbitrator.

6. This Court on 8th July, 2015 passed an order in OMP (I) No.142/2015, the relevant portion of the same reads as under:

“2. Learned senior counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioners have already appointed Mr.Gopal Jain, Senior Advocate, as an arbitrator and this application may be treated as an application under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and be heard and decided by the Ld. Arbitrator.

3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has no objection to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent.

4. In view of the submissions made by the learned senior counsel for both the parties, the parties shall place the copy of this petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and its reply before the Ld. Arbitrator who shall treat the same as an Application under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and shall list the same for hearing.”

7. The sole Arbitrator entered reference on 16th July, 2015 and fixed a date for hearing the application under Section 17 of the Act in accordance with the directions passed by this Court by order dated 8th July, 2015.

8. The respondent thereafter on 17th July, 2015 filed an application being I.A. No.17708/2015 in OMP (I) No.142 of 2015 for modification/ clarification of the order dated 8th July, 2015.

9. This Court on 6th October, 2015 passed the following order and disposed of the above said application being I.A. No.17708/2015:

“3. On 08th July, 2015, the learned senior counsel for the respondent had submitted that this petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act be treated as an application under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to be considered by the learned arbitrator to which the petitioners had no objection. In that view of the matter, this Court had disposed of the petition by treating the objection as an application under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act by the learned arbitration.

4. The order dated 08th July, 2015 is clarified to the extent that this Court had not examined that correctness of the appointment of the arbitrator and no submissions in respect thereof were mad