Unilateral appointment of arbitrators is impermissible under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, ensuring independence and impartiality in arbitrator selection.

JUDGMENT

Mini Pushkarna, J.

1. The present petitions have been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter called "The Act") for appointment of a sole arbitrator.

2. Petitioner herein deals in the business of catering and running food outlets/stalls across various railway stations in India. Respondent on the other hand is a Central Public Sector Enterprise under Ministry of Railways, Government of India and a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at B-148, 11th Floor, Statesman House, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001, providing ticketing, catering and tourism services to the Indian Railways.

3. In ARB. P. 765/2022, petitioner was awarded licence vide letter dated 29.07.2016 for setting up a food plaza at Patliputra Railway Station and operating the same at licence fees of Rs. 21,90,786/- per annum. Subsequently, disputes arose between the parties and petitioner invoked arbitration clause vide letter dated 26.10.2021 and suggested a name for appointment as sole arbitrator.

4. In ARB. P. 766/2022, petitioner was awarded licence vide letter 02.08.2016 to set up and operate food plaza at Tata Nagar Railway Station at licence fees of Rs. 36,50,786/- per annum. Since disputes arose between the parties with respect to the said licence, petitioner invoked arbitration clause vide letter dated 26.10.2021 and suggested a name for appointment as sole arbitrator.

5. The present petitions came to be filed before this Court for appointment of an independent arbitrator on the ground that the unilateral appointment procedure as envisaged in the arbitration clause is against the law laid down by Supreme Court. It is also submitted that this Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present petition.

6. On the other hand, the present petitions have been opposed vehemently by respondent on the ground that the same are not maintainable before this Court due to lack of territorial jurisdiction. It is submitted that arbitration clause in both the matters itself stipulates that the venue of arbitration shall be the place of Zonal Headquarters. Thus, it is contended that Zonal Headquarters of food plaza in ARB. P. 765/2022 is at Patliputra and in ARB. P. 766/2022 is at Tata Nagar. On this basis, it is submitted that the present petitions are not maintainable in this Court.

7. It is further submitted that the respondent has its own procedure for appointment of arbitrators and its own panel of arbitrators. Hence, it is contended that an arbitrator is to be appointed in terms of the procedure as envisaged in the arbitration clause between the parties and from the list of arbitrators maintained by respondent.

8. I have heard counsels for both the parties and perused the record.

9. The arbitration clause in both the cases is contained in Clause 11 respectively of the Tender document in ARB. P. 765/2022 and Master License Agreement dated 27.07.2017 in ARB. P. 766/2022 signed between the parties, which is reproduced as below:

"11.0 ARBITRATION