ORDER

V. Kameswar Rao, J.

1. All these petitions have been filed seeking appointment of an Arbitrator.

2. There is no dispute that the respondent had carried out the work on behalf of ESIC (item Nos.3, 4 & 6) / NDRF (item No.5). Certain claims have been raised by the petitioner, which have been declined by the respondent/HPL herein.

3. An objection has been taken by the respondent/HPL, inasmuch as the petitioner has not made ESIC / NDRF for whom the work was carried out as a party respondent. On that objection, I had issued notice to ESIC / NDRF and they are being represented through Mr. Shlok Chandra, Standing Counsel and Mr. Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, CGSC, respectively. In fact, Mr. Malhotra, learned counsel for the petitioner had also stated, he has no objection for impleadment of ESIC / NDRF as party respondent before the Arbitral Tribunal, if so constituted.

4. Today, Mr. Shlok Chandra, Advocate and Mr. Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, CGSC appears for ESIC / NDRF and contested the plea that has been urged by the respondent/HPL stating that the petitioner and the HPL inter-se are governed by the Contract, which stipulates an arbitration agreement and ESIC/NDRF cannot be made a party re