Ashis Kumar Chakraborty, J.

1. With consent of the parties, the appeal and the stay application being GA No. 136 of 2018 are taken up for hearing and the same are disposed of by this order.

2. This appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short, "the Act of 1996") at the instance of the respondent in the arbitration proceeding is directed against the order dated December 21, 2017 passed by the arbitrator appointed by this Court on November 23, 2017. By the impugned order, the arbitrator has directed the present appellant, the respondent in the arbitration proceeding, to furnish security for Rs. 25,57,41,367/- being the principal outstanding amount payable by it to the respondent-claimant as on October 31, 2017 within a period of three weeks from that date, failing which, the receiver shall take possession of the assets equivalent to the amount of Rs. 25,57,41,367/- out of the 800 second-hand assets acquired by the appellant with the loan amount obtained from the present respondent.

3. Assailing the impugned order passed by the arbitrator, Mr. Sanjay Banerjee, learned Advocate for the appellant contended that by an order dated November 23, 2017 this Court directed the arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties which were pending before the first arbitrator namely, Sri Saikat Das but the arbitrator is proceeding with the arbitral proceeding relating to a separate agreement between the parties. Therefore, according to the appellant, the arbitral proceeding proceeded by the arbitrator is without jurisdiction and consequently, the impugned order passed by the arbitrator is also void.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Swatarup Banerjee, learned Advocate for the present respondent claimant in the arbitration proceeding strenuously contended that the said order dated November 23, 2017 passed by this Court in APO No. 516 of 2017 in clear terms directed the present arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes which were pending before the second arbitrator namely, Ms. Dolon Dasgupta. According to the respondent, when the dispute pending before the said second arbitrator, Ms. Dolon Dasgupta related to the subsequent agreement entered into between the parties, the present arbitrator was absolutely correct to hold in the impugned order that he is required to adjudicate the disputes which were pending before the said second arbitrator Ms. Dolon Dasgupta. It was submitted by the claimant respondent that from the impugned order it is clear that the present appellant did nothing to contest the claim before the arbitrator and in fact it has no defence to the claim of the claimant for Rs. 25,57,41,367/- on account of admitted unpaid instalments. It was further submitted that it is not only that the impugned order passed by the arbitrator does not suffer from any infirmity, even the appellant has neither furnished security for payment of Rs. 25,57,41,367/- nor has it filed its affidavit before the arbitrator as directed by the arbitrator. The appellant has belatedly filed this appeal to prevent the receiver to take possession of the hypothecated assets in terms of the impugned order. The learned Advocate for the claimant respondent strongly argued for dismissal of the appeal for being devoid of any merit.

5. I have considered the materials on record and the arguments advanced on behalf of the respective parties. In the instant case, there is no dispute between the parties that in terms of the agreement dated April 1, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as "the said first agreement"), the present appellant obtained financial accommodation for acquiring 800 second-hand assets, which remain hypothecated in favour of the respondent. In view of the failure on the part of the appellant to make payment of the dues of the respondent in terms with the said first agreement, the parties had entered into a restructuring agreement dated June 30, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as "the said second agreement") whereby the payment mode of the dues of the appellant to the respondent were restructured. All disputes arising between the parties in relation to both the said first and second agreement are covered by the arbitration clause contained in the first agreement. The said second agreement clearly contemplates that in the event any failure on the part of the appellant to pay its dues to the respondent in terms thereof, the respondent would be entitled to revoke the said agreement and to enforce the first agreement. In the present case, there is no dispute between the parties that the disputes referred to the first arbitrator namely, Sri Saikat Das and those referred to the second arbitrator, Ms. Dolon Dasgupta related to separate agreement between the parties.

6. From a reading of the order dated November 23, 2017, it is clear that by the said order this Court discharged the second arbitrator, Ms. Dolon Dasgupta and appointed the present arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties pending before her. When the arbitral proceeding pending before the said first arbitrator and the said second arbitrator related to two separate agreements between the parties and this Court appointed the new arbitrator in place and stead of the second arbitrator, I do not find any merit in the contention raised on behalf of the present appellant that the arbitral proceeding which is being proceeded with before the present arbitrator in terms of the agreement dated April 1, 2014 is without jurisdiction. It is not the case of the appellant in this appeal that the finding of the arbitrator in the impugned order that as on October 31, 2017 the principal sum of Rs. 25,57,41,367/- remains outstanding by itself to the claimant is incorrect. In any event, in the absence of any application under Section 16 of the Act of 1996 from the sides of the appellant before the arbitrator challenging his jurisdiction to adjudicate the disputes rela

ting to the said agreement I do not find any merit in this appeal. 7. For the reasons as aforesaid, the appeal, APO No. 19 of 2018, stands dismissed. 8. When the appeal itself stands dismissed the application, GA No. 136 of 2018 has become infructuous and the same stands also dismissed. 9. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. 10. A prayer is made on behalf of the appellant for stay of operation of this order. Such prayer is considered and rejected. 11. Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.