In this case, the defendant appointed an arbitrator through a law firm, in 252 cases, the Bombay High Court overturned the four cases examined, and the four issues were referred to a new arbitrator to resolve each dispute independently. A dispute arose as a result of Tata Steel UK Ltd`s (Tata) request to renegotiate the terms of a 25-year licensing agreement (the “License”) with Associated British Ports (ABP). Tata attempted to amend the license under Clause 22, which stated: After the group`s certification, TCS filed a motion to divert plaintiff Buchanan`s claims from those of other plaintiffs and a request to force arbitration. Both applications were granted by the District Court. In 2007 and again in 2008, the Tata District Court rejected the plaintiffs` claims arbitration claims in India. The court ruled that there was no arbitration agreement because the documents, which would have required arbitration in India, applied one set of rules to the plaintiffs and another to Tata. The requirement and relevance of a mutual arbitration clause in an agreement and a possibility of bilateral appeal were originally considered by the Delhi High Court in Bhartia Cutler Hammer v. AVN Tubes6. In Emmsons International Ltd v Metal Distributors UK & Anr7, the Delhi High Court ruled that such an absolute restriction with a unilateral arbitration clause clearly violates the provisions of section 28 of the Indian Contract Act and does not violate public policy. .