IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO.38 OF 2009 Hemchandra B. Vaidya ... Petitioner Versus Kacher Dama Patil ... Respondent Mr.R.S. Datar for the petitioner. Mr. Sanedsh Deshpande for the respondent. CORAM : J.N. PATEL, ACTING C.J. DATED : 22ND JANUARY, 2010 P.C. Heard. 2. The parties have entered into the Memorandum of Understanding on 12.4.2006 for development of land bearing Survey Nos.113/1, 112/1, 114/9, 115/1 and 114/5 totally admeasuring 1H-00R-01P, situated at village Kavesar, Taluka and District Thane. 3. The petitioner is the developer and respondent is the owner of the land. As there were some dispute between the parties relating to the development of the said land and in respect of alienation in favour of third party, the petitioner has approached the District Judge, Thane by filing Arbitration Petition No.204 of 2007 under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It is the case of the petitioner that he is in possession of the subject property and the Development Agreement dated 23rd February, 2007 was executed by the respondent in favour of M/s. Vijay Associates. The petitioner gave notice dated 3.8.2007 through his advocate to the respondent and suggested that the dispute between the parties can be referred to Mr. Manik Mhatre who is nominated as Arbitrator by the petitioner. As the respondent failed to reply, this application has been filed for appointing an Arbitrator by invoking Clause 17 of the MOU dated 12th April, 2006. 4. The respondent in his affidavit in reply has contended that he has entered into the registered agreement with M/s. Vijay Associates in respect of the subject land and no purpose will be served if Arbitrator is appointed under section 11 of the Arbitration Act. It is stated that he has received a sum of Rs.1 crore from the said party and that the Arbitrator would not have any jurisdiction to set aside the said registered agreement which clearly shows that respondent has refused to get the dispute adjudicated by an Arbitrator in terms of clause 17 of the agreement between the parties. 5. Therefore, this court appoints Mr. J.K. Das, Retired District Judge as Arbitrator. Petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE