JUDGMENT :

The hearing has been conducted through video conferencing.

1. The above captioned petitions have been filed under the provisions of Section 11(6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

2. Pertinently, the dispute inter se parties pertains to different work orders issued by the respondent to petitioner with regard to different projects.

3. The above captioned first petition [ARB.P. 707/2021] pertains to work order dated 13.12.2016 and 19.01.2017. The second captioned petition [ARB.P. 708/2021] pertains to work order dated 06.04.2015 and the third captioned petition [ARB.P. 711/2021], pertains to work order dated 13.09.2016. According to petitioner, these work orders contain an arbitration clause in the event of dispute between the parties.

4. According to petitioner, after a dispute arose between the parties, vide notice dated 09.02.2021, petitioner invoked the arbitration clause and proposed the name of an Arbitrator, however, respondent went ahead and unilaterally appointed sole Arbitrator, which is bad in law. Hence, petitioners have approached this Court seeking appointment of an Arbitrator.

5. Pertinently, existence of work orders and arbitration clause; dispute betwee