Separate arbitration proceedings are mandated for distinct agreements unless the parties explicitly agree to consolidate them, aligning with the precedent established in Duro Felguera.

JUDGMENT (Oral)

1. This petition, under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("1996 Act"), at the instance of the Delhi Transport Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. (DTIDC), assails order dated 10th September, 2021, passed by a three-member Arbitral Tribunal, rejecting the application, under Section 16 of the 1996 Act, preferred by the petitioner before it.

2. The disputes, which arise out of three Concession Agreements dated 5th December, 2017, executed between the petitioner and the respondent, are presently in seisin before the learned Arbitral Tribunal. The respondent is the claimant before the learned Arbitral Tribunal and the petitioner is the respondent before it.

3. The respondent, in its Statement of Claim before the learned Arbitral Tribunal, consolidated its claims in respect of the three Concession Agreements. The petitioner, thereupon, moved an application under Section 16 of the 1996 Act, objecting to the consolidation of the claims and contending that the learned Arbitral Tribunal would have to treat each claim as a separate arbitrable dispute, and therefore, could not consolidate the claims. It is this application that has come to be dismissed by the order impugned in the present case.

4. Mr. Amiet Andlay, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that he has no objection to the respondent filing separate Statements of Claims before the learned Arbitral Tribunal qua its claims in respect of each Concession Agreement and the learned Arbitral Tribunal treating them as a separate dispute for the purpose of arbitration. He, however, opposes the consolidation of the claims as has been done by the learned Arbitral Tribunal and, therefore, submits that the rejection of his Section 16 application was erroneous.

5. The Concession Agreements between the petitioner and the respondent relate to marketing, operation and maintenance of various bus queue shelters (BQS). The shelters were divided into three Zones; Zone-2, Zone-4 and Zone-5. Though, initially, a consolidated Request For Proposal (RFP) was issued by the petitioner, inviting tenders for service providers for all the three Zones, thereafter, consequent on the respondent emerging as the successful bidder, three separate Concession Agreements were executed between the petitioner and the respondent, one for each Zone, all of which were dated 5th December, 2017.

6. Two Bank guarantees, for each zone, were also furnished by the respondent, as required by each Concession Agreement.

7. The petitioner alleges that the respondent was in default of licence fee payable under the Concession Agreements, whereupon the petitioner issued notices to the respondent on 6th June, 2020, 18th June, 2020 and 8th July, 2020. These notices, it is asserted, were separately issued for each Concession Agreement, i.e. for each zone.

8. Each Concession Agreement contains its own arbitration clause, though they were identical. The arbitration clause may be reproduced thus:

"23.1 Amicable Resolution