JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit, which is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Pankaj Srivastava and Sri Santosh Srivastava, Advocates for the petitioner, Sri Suyash Gupta and Sri Arun Gaur, Advocates for the respondent no. 1 and Sri Indu Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2, and perused the records.

3. By means of the instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the validity of the order dated 23.05.2023 passed by the Commercial Court No. 2, Lucknow, in Arbitration Case No. 923 of 2019, whereby an application for impleadment of M/s Accord Hydroair Pvt. Ltd. as a respondent to the case, filed by the petitioner-applicant before the Commercial Court, has been rejected.

4. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the petitioner had entered into a Tripartite-Agreement dated 28.04.2010 with the respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 2 to ensure scientific disposal of solid waste for a period of 30 years. It was a specific condition in the Agreement that the concessionaire shall not assign in favour of any person the Agreement or rights, benefits and obligations thereunder, save and except with prior consent of U.L.B. (Urban Local Body), i.e. Municipal Corporation, Moradabad. However, the concessionaire entered into a memorandum of understanding dated 02.07.2013 with M/s Accord Hydroair Pvt. Ltd. and in violation of the conditions of the Tripartite Agreement dated 28.04.2010, it assigned its obligations under the Agreement dated 28.04.2010 to M/s Accord Hydroair Pvt. Ltd. The memorandum of understanding dated 02.07.2013 entered into between the respondent no. 1 and M/s Accord Hydroair Pvt. Ltd. makes a reference to the Tripartite Agreement dated 28.04.2010 executed between the parties to the present case and the scope of work makes a reference to the Concession Agreement in question.

5. It appears that the Memorandum of Understanding dated 02.07.2013 has been issued in execution of works, which were to be performed under the Tripartite Agreement dated 28.04.2010. It is one of the conditions of the Agreement dated 02.07.2013 that M/s Accord Hydroair Pvt. Ltd. shall be entitled to receive payments from the respondent no. 2 against the works done by respondent no. 1 under the Tripartite Agreement dated 28.04.2010.

6. Certain disputes occurred between M/s Accord Hydroair Pvt. Ltd. and the respondent no. 1, regarding which Arbitration proceedings were initiated. The respondent no. 2 was also made a party in the Arbitration proceedings. The respondent no. 2 challenged it’s impleadment by filing an application under Section 37, which was rejected by the Arbitral Tribunal. The respondent no. 2 challenged the order of rejection by filing Appeal No. 674 of 2014 under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act before the Commercial Court at Lucknow.

7. Certain disputes arose between the parties in execution of the Agreement dated 28.04.2010 also, regarding which separate Arbitration proceedings were initiated by the respondent no. 1, which culminated into an award dated 03.09.2019 by the Arbitrator. The petitioner has challenged the Arbitration award dated 03.09.2019 by filing an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, which has been registered as Arbitration Case No. 923 of 2019 and is pending before the Commercial Court No. 2, Lucknow.

8. The petitioner filed an application for consolidation of the proceedings of the application under Section 34 filed by it with the appeal under Section 37, which was filed against the order of rejection of the application of respondent no. 2 for being deleted from the array of parties in the Arbitration proceedings between the respondent no. 1 and M/s Accord Hydroair Pvt. Ltd. The application was rejected by means of an order dated 20.03.2023. The petitioner had challenged the order before this Court by filing petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India bearing No. 1551 of 2023, wh