THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Arbitration Application 86 of 2011 ORDER This application has been taken out under sub sections 2 & 6 of Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 read with Scheme to Appointment of Arbitrators, 1996, for resolution of the disputes relatable to Helicopter Charter Agreement dated 31-3-2008. The respondent has entered into a Helicopter Charter Agreement with the applicant on 31-3-2008 for chartering Agusta A-119 for a term commencing from 2-4- 2008 to 30-06-2008 i.e., initially for a term of three months and further extendable for three months. Upon completion of the agreement, the respondent utilized the helicopter provided by the applicant, but failed to pay the invoices amount. The applicant raised invoices amounting Rs.1,22,43,803/-. The respondent paid a sum of Rs.96,48,127/-, leaving a balance of Rs.25,21,979/-. The applicant issued a notice dated 16-2-2009 demanding the respondent to make good the payment, but of no avail. The applicant issued a notice dated 28-06-2011 invoking the arbitration clause in the agreement and proposing Sri V.V.Raghavan, a retired District Judge as an Arbitrator on its behalf and calling upon the respondent to appoint its arbitrator. The respondent issued a reply notice dated 30-07-2011 refuting the claim of the claimant. Hence, this application. Notice to the respondent came to be ordered on 11-10-2011. The respondent filed counter-affidavit and made a counter claim of Rs.1,14,978/-. Since the existence of the arbitration clause is not disputed by the respondent, the other contentions raised by the respondent in the counter need not be referred to. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the respondent having received various invoices paid only part of the invoices amount leaving a balance of Rs.25,21,979/-. A further submission has been made that when the applicant made a demand for Rs.25,21,979/- through notice dated 16-2-2009, the respondent neither issued reply nor paid the amount. Subsequently, the applicant invoked the arbitration clause and issued a notice dated 28-6-2011 proposing Sri V.V.Raghavan, as an Arbitrator on its behalf and calling upon the respondent to nominate their arbitrator and since the respondent refuted the claim vide reply dated 30-7-2011, the applicant is compelled to approach this Court invoking jurisdiction under sub-Sections 2 and 6 of Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 read with Scheme to Appointment of Arbitrators, 1996, seeking appoint of Arbitrator. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the claim made by the applicant is not valid, but instead the respondent has to get a refund of Rs.1,14,978/- Be that as it may, the applicant and the respondent have claims against each other. It can be said that there are disputes between the parties relatable to Helicopter Charter Agreement, dated 31-3-2008. As per Clause 18.1 of the agreement, the disputes between the parties are required to be resolved by taking recourse to arbitration. Though the Arbitration Tribunal is required to be constituted under Clause 18.1 of the agreement, during the course of hearing, both the learned counsel have consented for appointment of sole arbitrator for resolution of the disputes. In that view of the matter, the arbitration application is allowed appointing Sri Vaman Rao, retired High Court Judge as an Arbitrator for resolution of the disputes between the parties relatable to the Helicopter Charter Agreement, dated 31-3-2008. He shall fix his own fees. __________________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY,J rkk Dated: 28-12-2011