THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI COMPANY PETITION No. 102 OF 2009 Dated: 15.11.2010 Between: Mr.M.Rajan ..... PETITIONER AND M/s. J.S.Industries Private Limited .....RESPONDENT The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI COMPANY PETITION No.102 OF 2009 ORDER : This Company Petition is filed under Sections 439 (1) (b) and 433 (e) read with Section 434 (1) (a) of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short, ‘the Act’) for winding up of M/s. J.S. Industries Private Limited (the respondent herein) and to appoint the Official Liquidator attached to this Court as the Liquidator. It is alleged by the petitioner that the respondent company was liable to pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs.18,59,752/- under the share purchase agreement dated 25.05.2005 and that in spite of the statutory notice dated 27.2.2009 issued under Section 433 (e) of the Act, the respondent failed to respond. While alleging that the respondent company was unable to pay its debts, the petitioner prayed for winding up of the said company. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent company, while denying the allegations made by the petitioner, an objection has been raised as to the maintainability of the petition contending that the Share Purchase Agreement, dated 25.5.2005 provided for arbitration for resolving all the disputes arising out of the said agreement. Having regard to the objection raised by the respondent as to the maintainability of the Company Petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri V.S. Raju, submitted that the petitioner is also willing for referring the dispute for arbitration in terms of Clause-18 of the Agreement dated 25.5.2005. The learned counsel has proposed to appoint Sri Kukkaje Ramakrishna Bhat, District Judge (Retired) as the sole arbitrator. Sri V. Srinivas, the learned counsel for the sole respondent submitted that the respondent has no objection for referring the dispute to the above named sole arbitrator. Accordingly, Sri Kukkaje Ramakrishna Bhat, District Judge (Retd.) is hereby appointed as the sole arbitrator and the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent arising out of the agreement dated 25.5.2005 is referred for adjudication. The learned Arbitrator is at liberty to fix his fee and the further proceedings shall be taken up in accordance with law. The Company Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J Dt. 15.11.2010 Ivd