- (1.) In this application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act , 1996(in short "the Act of 1996"), the petitioner has prayed for appointment of a sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes and differences arisen between the parties herein relating to six Letters of Intent dated December 21, 2020, November 1, 2013, April 13, 2016, April 13, 2016, July 1, 2016 and July 1, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as "the letters of intent"). According to the petitioner company, they issued the said Letters of Intent (hereinafter referred to as "the letters of intent") for the respondent to carry out construction work of the project, namely "BCT Sonar Sonsar" at Sonarpur in the district of South 24 Parganas (hereinafter referred to as "the said project"). All the letters of intent contained similar arbitration clause providing for adjudication of all disputes and differences between the parties, if any, through arbitration. The arbitration clause contained in each of the said Letters of Intent contemplated that the disputes between the parties thereto would be adjudicated by a sole Arbitrator mutually agreed by them. The petitioner claims that the respondent has committed breach of all the said Letters of Intent which have given rise to various disputes and differences between the parties. By a notice dated May 21, 2018, issued under Section 21 of the Act of 1996 the petitioner informed the respondent of all the disputes arisen between the parties relating to all the said Letters of Intent. By a letter dated June 12, 2018 the respondent replied to the petitioners said notice dated May 21, 2018 and asserted that since they have already initiated a proceeding under Section 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016(hereinafter referred to as "the said Code"), the disputes between the parties are no more arbitrable and as such there is no scope for appointment of an Arbitrator. The respondent has also filed an affidavit-in-opposition to this application reiterating their statements made in the said notice dated June 12, 2018.
(2.) In the present case, the issuance of all of the said letters of intent by the petitioner in favour of the respondent is not in dispute. Even the proceeding initiated by the respondent against the petitioner under Section 9 of the Code is also an admitted fact. However, the said application filed by the respondent against the petitioner is yet to be admitted by the National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench.
(3.) In the affidavit-in-opposition, the respondent has only denied the assertion made by the petitioner that the disputes arisen between the parties relating to each of the six letters of intent are composite in nature in respect of the said project and if separate arbitration proceedings are filed it would lead to multiplicity of proceeding. The respondent, however, has not stated anything to elaborate as to why this Court should not accept the petitioners assertion of the disputes between the parties relating to the said six letters of intent being composite in nature.;