1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. These are applications seeking appointment of Arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

3. The learned counsel for the applicants accepted that once Sri Rajesh Rai has already been appointed as an Arbitrator by the respondents in these matters. However, he submitted that such appointment is improper, given the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Perkins Eastman Architects DPC and Another v. HSCC (India) Limited, (2020) 20 SCC 760. Accordingly, he submitted that this Court should proceed to appoint a fresh Arbitrator by either ignoring the appointment of Sri Rajesh Rai or terminating the mandate of Sri Rajesh Rai to proceed with the arbitration.

4. The reliefs that are now claimed cannot be granted in an application under Section 11(6) of the said Act. If the applicants have any grievances about the appointment of Sri Rajesh Rai as the Arbitrator, they are free to take out appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum in that regard. However, no relief, as claimed for, can be granted to the applicants in these proceedings.

5. On the above short ground, all these applications are dismissed with liberty to the applicants to adopt appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum for redressal of their grievances.

6. If and when the mandate of the present Arbitrator is terminated and there is any difficulty in securing the appointment of a fresh Arbitrator, this order shall not preclude the applicants from filing application under Section 11 of the said Act.

7. Further, all contentions of all parties are explicitly left open because this Court has not gone into the rival contentions but disposed of these applications with liberty in the above terms. No costs.