IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to appoint an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the considerations for ensuring the independence and impartiality of the arbitrator.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Syed Tamjeed Ahmad, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Puneet Chandra, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This Court, by means of the order dated 07.02.2023, proposed the name of Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.C.Gupta(Former Judge of this Court) as Arbitrator to settle the dispute between the parties. The order dated 07.02.2023, on reproduction, reads as under:-

"Heard Sri Awaneesh Yadav learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Puneet Chandra learned counsel for the respondent.

This Court has passed following order on 12.12.2023:-

"Heard Shri Syed Tamjeet Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Puneet Chandra, learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of the respondent.

The instant petition has been preferred under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for seeking appointment of a sole Arbitrator.

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that three separate agreements were entered between the parties. All the three agreements between the parties are dated 30.06.2017. Each of the agreement has an identical arbitration clause.

It is further urged that the first agreement relates to supply of equipment and material for construction of 400kV Sub Station at Jaunpur. The second agreement of the same date relates to the erection, testing, commissioning, operation and maintenance for two years of 400kV Sub Station at Jaunpur whereas the third agreement relates to civil works for construction of 400kV Sub Station at Jaunpur. Accordingly, it is submitted that all the three contracts are part of one composite project which was to be completed by the petitioner under the three separate heads.

It is further urged that during the course of subsistence of the agreements, certain disputes arose between the parties and the petitioner by means of its notice dated 27.09.2023 by making a reference to all the three contracts invoked the arbitration clause.

It is further submitted that as per Clause 38 of the agreement which contained an arbitration clause it provided that any dispute arose between the parties was to be referred to the Chairman of the respondent Corporation, however, in light of the provisions contained in Section 12(5) of the Act of 1996 duly amended in the year 2015 it is now not open for the respondent to either arbitrate or nominate an arbitrator.

In the given circumstances, the petitioner had requested the respondent to cooperate in an early constitution of Arbitral Tribunal, however, despite the notice dated 27.09.2023 having been served on the respondent, there was no response, hence, the petition.

Shri Puneet Chandra, learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that though he requires time to file his response as he wishes to raise a preliminary objection to the effect that since there are three separate agreements which have given rise to three separate cause of action, hence, one single petition raising the disputes as well as one composite notice dated 27.09.2023 both are not valid, apart from the fact that the agreements also provide for the jurisdiction at Allahabad.

Let the response be filed by the respondent within two weeks from today with an advance copy to the learned counsel for the petitioner, who if may so choose, may file his response within one week thereafter.

Since, the respondent Corporation is represented through its counsel, hence, no fresh notice is required.

List this matter on 12.01.2024. "

Learned counsel for the respondent, on the basis of instructions submits that respondent does not want to file any objection and since there is dispute, therefore, Arbitrator may be appointed.

Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties there appears to be some arbitral dispute between the parties and if the same is resolved through Arbitrator appointed by this Court in terms of Clause 25 of Section 8 of the agreement none of the parties are going to be prejudiced.

Accordingly the Court proposes to appoint