JUDGMENT :

PRATEEK JALAN, J.

1. By way of these petitions under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [“the Act”], the petitioner assails two arbitral awards between the parties rendered by the same arbitrator, albeit under different contract agreements. In O.M.P. (COMM) 87/2022, the impugned award was made on 23.01.2021 and arose out of a Contract Agreement dated 09.02.2016 (pursuant to Letter of Intent dated 27.11.2014 and Work Order dated 23.04.2015). In O.M.P. (COMM) 377/2022, the impugned award was made on 18.08.2021[At the foot of the award, the date mentioned is 20.08.2021.] and arose out of a Contract Agreement dated 09.02.2016 (pursuant to the Letter of Intent dated 27.11.2014 and Work Order dated 10.07.2015).

2. Both agreements contain identical arbitration clauses (Clause 26), which provide for resolution of disputes by sole arbitration of the Head of the Transmission Business Group (TBG) of the respondent or his appointee. The undisputed factual position is that the petitioner sought invocation of arbitration by communications addressed to the respondent, and the respondent appointed the arbitrator who has rendered the impugned awards.

3. The primary grou