JUDGMENT

Shekhar B. Saraf, J.—An interesting issue has fallen before this court with respect to the three petitions before me, which are A.P. 854 of 2022, A.P. 853 of 2022 and A.P. 852 of 2022. Since, the issue is identical in these petitions they are being decided together in this judgement. The petitions are applications under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for appointment of an arbitrator on the basis of clauses, which are identical in the three agreements.

2. The issue would require venturing into an endeavour to ascertain the ingredients/requirements of a binding arbitration clause and later to decide whether these ingredients are present or found wanting in the identical agreements in the instant petitions.

Relevant Facts

3. Since the issue and the clauses are identical, only the pertinent facts and clauses of A.P. 852 of 2022 are produced herein below:—

(a) The petitioner, Blue Star Limited, entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (hereinafter referred to as the ‘MoU’) with the respondent, Rahul Saraf, as per which, the petitioner was to render its operation and maintenance services from January 1, 2019 to