JUDGMENT :

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J.

1. The present application has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) praying for appointment of an independent Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes which have arisen between the parties.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that there was a work order issued by the applicant to respondent No.1 vide Annexure P-1 dated 02.09.2024 which contains detailed terms and conditions and is therefore, in the nature of a Contract. He further submitted that the aforesaid work order (Annexure P-1) provides a mechanism for resolution of disputes between the parties, including a valid arbitration clause and the applicability of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. He further submitted that since a dispute arose between the parties, the applicant invoked the aforesaid arbitration clause by issuing notice under Section 21 of the Act to the respondent vide Annexure P-2 dated 22.04.2025 wherein even the name of an Arbitrator was proposed by the applicant. The respondents had replied to the said notice vide Annexure P-3 wherein they did not agree to the appointment of the Arbitrator and therefore, the mechanism had failed. Consequently, the present application has been filed under Section 11 of the Act for appointment of a Sole Arbitrator by this Court.

3. On the other hand, Ms. Surbhi Aggarwal, learned counsel for the respondents has caused appearance through video conferencing and Mr. Kartik Gupta, Mr. Navin Kumar and Mr. Hitesh Grewal, Advocates, who are present in Court, have submitted that there is no dispute with regard to existence of the Contract in the nature of a work order vide Annexure P-1 dated 02.09.2024, regarding which, the work was executed and there is also no dispute with regard to existence of a valid arbitration clause i.e. Clause 21. She further submitted that there is also no dispute that the applicant has invoked the aforesaid arbitration clause by issuing notice under Section 21 of the Act vide Annexure P-2 to which the reply was given by the respondents to the applicant wherein they did not agree to the appointment of the proposed Arbitrator.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents has however submitted that the respondents have got two objections with regard to the present application filed by the applicant. Firstly that the present application is liable to be dismissed on the ground of misjoinder of the parties. In this regard, she referred to the memo of parties whereby there are three respondents and submitted that the Contract in the nature of work order was between the applicant and respondent No.1 only whereas respondents No.2 & 3 are non-signatories and they were not parties to the Contract, therefore, they have been wrongly joined as party. She further submitted that secondly, by virtue of the aforesaid Arbitration Clause i.e. Clause 21 of the Contract/Work Order, before resorting to the arbitration, the matter was first required to be discussed in order to reach at an amicable settlement. However, no steps were taken by the applicant in this regard and it straight-away issued a notice under Section 21 of the Act invoking the aforesaid arbitration clause. Therefore, on this ground as well, the present application is liable to be dismissed.

5. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

6. Neither the Work Order/Contract is in dispute nor is there a dispute with regard to prima facie existence of an arbitration clause in the aforesaid Contract/Work Order (Annexure P-1) which has been invoked by the applicant by issuing notice under Section 21 of the Act to the respondents vide Annexure P-2. However, two-fold objections were raised by learned counsel for the respondents. Therefore, each of the objections is required to be dealt with independently.

7. So far as the first objection raised by learned counsel for the respondents is concerned, the same pertains to the misjoinder of part