The court emphasized the importance of upholding arbitration agreements and referred to the judgment in Pravin Electricals Pvt. Ltd. vs. Galaxy Infra and Engineering Pvt. Ltd. to support the appointment of the Sole Arbitrator.

JUDGMENT :

GIRISH AGNIHOTRI, J.

1. The matter has been taken up through video conferencing on account of restrictions due to outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic.

2. This order shall dispose of the following Arbitration cases and review applications collectively by way of a common order:

3. For the sake of facts, order is being passed in RA-CR-25-2021 in/and ARB-52-2021 and for the sake of facts, reference is also being made to ARB-52-2021 and ARB-25-2021.

4. Learned counsel for the review-applicant/appellant-respondent submits that the written arguments submitted by the respondents in ARB-52-2021 be treated the common stand of the respondents in all cases.

5. Learned counsel for the non-applicant/petitioner submits that the reply to the RA-CR-21-2021 in ARB-25-2021 be treated the common stand on behalf of the petitioners in all cases.

6. ARB-52-2021 has been filed by M/s ABW Suncity in the nature of petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 inter-alia with a prayer for appointment of a Sole Arbitrator to settle the dispute inter se petitioner and the respondents.

7. Records of the case show that when this case along with other connected matters came up for hearing before this Court on 21.01.2021, this Court had disposed of the present case vide order dated 21.01.2021. In that order, reliance was also placed upon an earlier order passed by this Court dated 09.09.2020 in ARB-134-2020 titled as M/s ABW Suncity vs. Kishen M. Seshadari and Others.

8. Thereafter RA-CR-25-2021 was filed in ARB-52-2021 under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Sections 114 and 151 CPC inter-alia with a prayer to review the order dated 21.01.2021 passed by this Court. In the review application filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been contended that the respondents for whom learned advocates appeared on 21.01.2021 had not given any instructions to the advocates to the effect that they have no objection in case the Arbitrator from the panel of arbitrators is appointed.

9. At this stage, learned counsel for the respondents-review applicants submits that it is correct that this Court on 21.01.2021 had directed that counsel who are giving consent and have instructions from their respective clients that they have no objection in case an Arbitrator is appointed by this Court, should convey their respective attendance to the admin of the video conferencing group. It is also not disputed that counsel for the review-applicants/respondents had given their presence. However, learned counsel has specifically contended that they had not correctly understood the observations of the Court at the time of hearing and, therefore, in the review applications inasmuch as the review applicants/respondents be allowed to address the oral arguments in support of their review applications and against the appointment of the Sole Arbitrator.

10. In view of the above, this Court in the peculiar facts and circumstances stated above and in the interest of justice, decided to accept the request of the review applicants/respondents through the counsel for the respondents to address the oral arguments on merits. Accordingly, earlier order dated 21.01.2021 is recalled.

11. Records would further show that on 03.03.2021 notice in the review applications was issued to counsel for the non-applicant/petitioner. On 31.03.2021, the matter was adjourned to 05.04.2021. In the meantime, respective counsel were directed to complete their pleadings. Accordingly, the