H¢m HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Single Bench: Hon‘ble Shri Dhirendra Mishral J.) Arbihmtion Agglica?ion No.37 of 2009 (Applica‘rion under Seaion 11 (6) of ‘rhe Arbi’rm’rion & ConciHaTion Act, 1996) PETITIONER Sakshi Services (India) L1’d. having i’rs registered office aT 305, Triveni Plaza, 17A/56, W.E. A, Karol Bagh, New Delhi 110005 Through H's Direc’ror‘. RESPONDENT ‘ M/s Ind Synergy Limifed, Lofus Courf, Opposi’re VCA Sfadium, Ga’re No.2, Neor' Ho‘rei Heri‘ruge, Civil‘ Lines, Nagpur (Maharashtra) Vs Prese n1‘ : Mr. Ashish Shrivas-tava, Advoca're for ’rhe applicant Mr. RR. Sinha, Advoca’re for ’rhe respondent Oral Order (8” February, 2011) 1. Heard. Z. The pe‘iifioner has filed ”this applicafion under Section 11 (6) of The Arbifrai'ion and Conciiiafion Ac’r, 1996 (for brevi’ry ‘fhe Ac’r') wiih The avermenTs ThaT The peTiTioner has enTered inTo an agreemen’r wiTh The respondenT To acT as “Selling AgenT" for The respondenT for procuremenT of orders for “Sponge Iron (direcT reduced iron), IngoTs 8i Billefs" on The Terms and condiTions sTaTed in The agreemenT ‘ (Annexure A—2). Clause-14 of The agreemen’r provides for resoluTion of dispuTe beTween The parTies arising ouT of The conTracf, which reads as under:— “14. ThaT any dispu’re, difference or quesTion arising ouT of or in connecTion wiTh This AgreemenT shall be seTfled by arbiTraTion in accordance wiTh The provisions of The ArbiTra‘rion and ConciliaTion Acf, 1996 and for all purposes hereof The CourTs in Raipur alone shall have exclusive jurisdicTion." . A dispu‘re befween The parTies arose as The claim of fhe peTifioner far paymen‘r of oufsTanding/debi’r balance of Rs.1,54,87,688/— was noT sef’rled by ‘rhe responden‘r despi’re several represenfa‘rions (Annexure A—4). Finally, The peTi'rioner served fhe respondenf wi’rh a no’rice dafed 10.10.2009 (Annexure A-6) invoking arbi’rr‘m‘ion Clause-14 of The agreemen'r (Annexure A‘Z) and requested fhe respondeni for appointmen‘r of fhe Sole Arbifm‘ior‘ wifhin 3O days from fhe da‘reof receipt of The noTice. However, when The responden‘r failed To reply The above communicaTion, The insTanT applicaTion for appoinTmenT of ‘ The Sole ArbiTraTor has‘been filed. . The respondenT in iTs reply dispuTed The claim of The peTiTioner and wiTh respecT To The exisTence of arbiTraTion Clause 14 iT has only been sTaTed ThaT jurisdicTion under The agreemenT, as per Clause—14, vesTed wiTh The CourTs aT Raipur. However, Mr. Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of The respondenT submiTs ThaT This CourT alone has The jurisdicTion To enTerTain This applicaTion under SecTion 11 (6) of The ACT. . AfTer going Through The conTenTs of The applicaTion, reply filed by The respondenT as also Clause 14 of The agreemenT (Annexure A-Z), I am of The opinion ThaT a dispuTe has arisen beTween The parTies arising ouT of The agreemenT of Annexure A—Z and The case for appoinTmenT of The Sole ArbiTraTor, as per Clause—14 of The agreemenT, is made ouT. AT This sTage, learned counsel for The parTies submiT ThaT They have no objecTion if any of The Hon’ble ReTired Judges of The High CourT of ChhaTTisgarh is appoinTed as The Sole ArbiTraTor in The maTTer. In view of The above submissions of The parTies, I hereby, Therefore, appoinT Hon’ble Mr. JusTice Vijay Kumar ShrivasTava (ReTired) as The ‘Sole ArbiTraTor', subjecT To his consenT. The Hon'ble ArbiTraTor may seTTle his Terms and condiTions and remuneraTions. . The RegisTry To inTimaTe Hon’ble JusTice Shri Vijay Kumar ShrivasTava (ReTired) abouT his appoinTmenT as Sole ArbiTraTor and To send all The papers along wiTh addresses of The parTies. Parties are aiso direcfed 1‘0 approach Hon’ble Justice Shri Vij Kumar shrivasfava (Refired), who is presen‘rly residing a? Vidhik Seva Marg, (Ware House Road), Bildspur (CG), submit papers and fake parf in The arbifmfion proceedings. 9. The appiicafion is disposed of accordingly. ish‘a . naya Dhme wage a