JUDGMENT

1. The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 20.11.2024 (hereafter ‘impugned order’) passed by the learned Arbitrator.

2. By the impugned order, the learned Arbitrator rejected the application under Section 16(3) read with Section 32(2)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Act’), preferred by the petitioner, seeking termination of the arbitral proceedings on the ground that the disputes are non-arbitrable for the reason that the contract entered into between the parties was void ab initio, and that the assets which are subject matter of the proceedings have been provisionally attached by the Enforcement Directorate under Section 5 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (‘PMLA’).

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

3.1. The petitioner and Respondent No.2 are the partners of Respondent No.4 LLP. It is the case of Respondent No.1 (claimant before the learned Arbitrator) that Corporate Insolvency Resolution Proceedings pertaining to Respondent No.3, which was principally engaged in the milling, branding and marketing of rice having plants in two locations–Amritsar and Bahalg