EUROBEARINGS INDIA PRIVATE.LIMITED Vs. EUROBEARINGS R.I.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The parties are the same in both these petitions and as such they are taken up together. In both these petitions, the petitioner is seeking that the sole arbitrator be appointed to adjudicate the dispute and difference between the parties. In Arbitration Petition No. 04 of 2021, the dispute is stated to have arisen under the Equipment Purchase Agreement with Deferred Payment Option dated 02.12.2015. In Arbitration Petition No. 05 of 2021, the dispute is stated to have arisen under the Equipment Lease Agreement with Purchase Option dated 01.04.2015.

(2.) In both these petitions, the factual matrix is that the respondent herein had issued notices dated 08.10.2020, invoked the arbitration clause and appointed Justice Indermeet Kaur Kochhar, Former Judge of the Delhi High Court as the Sole Arbitrator. The said notice is stated to have been issued in terms of the respective arbitration clauses in the agreements in question. The petitioner, through their reply dated 20.10.2020 called upon the respondent to unconditionally withdraw the notice and without prejudice to the same, also did not agree to the name of the Arbitrator suggested by the respondent. The learned Arbitrator has already entered reference. In that background, the instant petition is filed by the petitioner seeking appointment of the Arbitrator.

(3.) At the outset, we are of the opinion that the instant petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('Act 1996' in short) will not be sustainable inasmuch as the learned Arbitrator has already been appointed and has entered reference. Further, the instant petition is not at the instance of the party who has invoked the arbitration clause.