Separate arbitration clauses in interrelated contracts need not be merged, and valid invocation can support arbitrator appointment.

Independent commercial agreements with separate arbitration clauses cannot be merged into one composite reference merely because they are commercially interconnected. Where the contracts provide distinct tribunal mechanisms or seats, separate arbitral treatment remains appropriate, although a party may still seek separate appointment. A notice invoking arbitration is sufficient if it clearly communicates disputes and the intention to arbitrate, and prior consultation requirements may be treated as substantially satisfied by exchanges between the parties. Pending insolvency-related or parallel proceedings do not, by themselves, bar appointment of an arbitrator where the disputes remain arbitrable and no legal impediment to Section 11 relief exists.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether separate contracts containing different arbitration clauses could be referred in a composite manner to one arbitral forum, and (ii) whether the invocation notice, pre-arbitral consultation requirement, and the pendency of insolvency-related proceedings barred appointment of an arbitrator.

Issue (i): Whether separate contracts containing different arbitration clauses could be referred in a composite manner to one arbitral forum.

Analysis: The agreements were found to be independent contracts executed between two different sets of parties, with distinct arbitration mechanisms, including different tribunal compositions and different seats or venues. Although the contracts had commercial interdependence in the business arrangement, that interdependence was not sufficient to compel a single composite reference when the contractual arbitration clauses were separate and distinct. At the same time, the petitioner had sought an alternative course of separate appointment, which removed the need to refuse relief merely because a single composite reference was not appropriate.

Conclusion: A composite reference was not accepted as the governing basis, but the disputes were still amenable to arbitration through separate appointment.

Issue (ii): Whether the invocation notice, pre-arbitral consultation requirement, and the pendency of insolvency-related proceedings barred appointment of an arbitrator.

Analysis: The notice invoking arbitration was held to be sufficient because it conveyed the existence of disputes and the intention to refer them to arbitration, even if it was not artistically drafted. The consultation requirement under the agreement was treated as substantially met because the parties had already exchanged communications regarding the disputes. The pendency of insolvency proceedings and related proceedings before other forums did not extinguish arbitrable disputes or prevent a petition under Section 11, since the moratorium did not bar proceedings initiated by the corporate debtor through the resolution process and the scope of those other proceedings was distinct.

Conclusion: The arbitration invocation was held to be valid, and the pendency of insolvency-related or other proceedings did not bar appointment of an arbitrator.

Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded and an arbitrator was appointed to adjudicate the disputes, leaving the parties free to raise all objections before the arbitral forum.

Ratio Decidendi: Independent commercial agreements with separate arbitration clauses cannot be forcibly merged into one composite reference merely because they are interrelated in business, and a sufficiently clear invocation of arbitration will not be defeated by technical objections where the disputes remain arbitrable and no legal bar to appointment exists.

---