JUDGMENT (Oral)

1. This petition, under Sections 14 and 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("the 1996 Act"), seeks termination of the mandate of the learned arbitrator presently in seisin of the disputes between the parties.

2. The limited issue in controversy is whether the learned arbitrator is coram non judice, on the ground that his appointment has been made in violation of the provisions of the 1996 Act.

3. The contractual relationship between the petitioner and the respondent consisted of an agreement dated 25th January, 2020, followed by a supplementary agreement dated 20th June, 2020.

4. Learned Counsel for the parties are ad idem that the arbitration clause which would apply is Clause 14 of the supplementary agreement dated 20th June, 2020, which reads thus:

"14. That in case any dispute or difference arising out of or touching this agreement and/or the agreement date 25.01.2020, the same shall be referred to the arbitration of the sole arbitrator, Hon'ble Mr. Justice NK Modi Retired judge Madhya Pradesh High Court and failing him Mr. Brajesh Kumar Retired Additional District and Sessions Judge, Delhi. The Arbitrator shall give the reasoned award."

5. According to the petitioner, the dispute, which was raised by the respondent against the petitioner, was totally frivolous and without merit. That, however, is clearly an issue which, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 14 of the 1996 Act, this Court cannot examine, as Section 14 is restricted to the issue of whether the learned arbitrator has been rendered de facto or de jure incapable of continuing to function as arbitrator.

6. The main contention of Mr. Ravjot Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, is that the learned arbitrator could not have assumed jurisdiction over the arbitral proceedings, as they were initiated in violation of Section 21 of the 1996 Act, no notice of arbitration, as envisaged by the said provision, having ever been served on the petitioner by the respondent.

7. The petition avers that, on 9th October, 2021, the petitioner received an e-mail from the learned arbitrator, intimating the petitioner that he had been appointed as arbitrator by the respondent, vide the communication dated 6th October, 2021. The learned arbitrator, apparently, thereafter, entered on reference and proceeded to fix the hearing.

8. The petitioner, in the circumstances, addressed a communication to the learned arbitrator on 20th October, 2020, disputing the authority of the learned arbitrator to arbitrate, for lack of any notice invoking arbitration under Section 21 of the 1996 Act.

9. It was also averred, in the said communication, that a necessary prerequisite for valid arbitral proceedings was reference of an arbitrable dispute. In the absence of a notice under Section 21, the petitioner contended that there was no dispute referred to arbitration, on which the arbitrator could assume jurisdiction.

10. On these objections, the learned arbitrator proceeded to pass the following order on 20th October, 2021:

"Vide notice dated 09.10.2021, the parties were directed to appear before the Tribunal on 20.10.2021 at 02:30 p.m. In compliance of the said notice, the Claimant appeared through advocates but Respondents remained absent. Vide email dated 20.10.2021 sent at 02:11 p.m. on behalf of Respondents, it is informed that the Respondents have received the intimation about the appointment as arbitrator and also about the date of hearing. However in the said email it is stated that there is no dispute between the parties which requires adjudication. It is also stated that appointment of undersigned as Sole Arbitrator is not proper. In the said email it is also stated that because of prior obligations, the Respondents are unable to attend the hearing.

So far as appointment of undersigned as sole arbitrator is concerned, prima facie it appears that both the parties vide agreement dated 25.01.2020 appointed the undersigned as sole arbitrator. However