THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI ARBITRATION APPLICATION No.29 OF 2010 DATED: 01.04.2011 Between: M/s. Khandoba Distilleries Limited, having Its regd. office at Snehaleela, 1st Floor, Apte Road, Deccan Gymkhana , Pune-411004 And Head Office at C2, Pooja Plaza, Vikrampuri Colony, Secunderabad-500 009. … Applicant And KBK Chem-Engineering Pvt.Limited, Having its regd. office at I-DOT Comple, NDA, Pashan Road, Bavdhan, Pune-411021. .. Respondent THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI ARBITRATION APPLICATION No.29 OF 2010 ORDER : This application is filed under Sections 11 (2), 11 (4) & 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of arbitrator for resolution of the claims and disputes arising out of the Agreements dated 21.10.2008 and 20.10.2008. Admittedly the applicant and the respondent company entered into a contract for setting up a Molasses Based Distillery Plant. Pursuant thereto, two contracts namely (i) Civil Contract for 150 KLPD distilleries dt. 21.10.2008, and (ii) Plant Equipment Supply Contract for 150 KLPD distilleries, dated 20.10.2008 were executed between the parties. It is also not in dispute that Clause 11.11 of above mentioned contracts contained an arbitration clause as under: “Clause 11.11 Governing Law and Jurisdiction: This Agreement shall be governed by construed and enforced in accordance with the Laws of India and, subject to clause 11.10 above, shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts at Hyderabad, India, including in the event of invocation of jurisdiction of the courts before, during or after the invocation of Clause 11.10 above.” Alleging that the respondent failed to comply with its commitment to complete the project by 15.05.2009 and moreover it had abandoned the project work abruptly, the applicant by letter dated 17.08.2009 called upon the respondent to rectify the defaults. The respondent gave a reply dated 25.08.2009 making certain counter- allegations. Though the applicant made an attempt for resolution of the issues amicably, the same could not be worked out. In the circumstances, the applicant served notice of termination dated 23.09.2009 in respect of both the contracts. The respondent gave a reply dated 9.10.2009 contending that the applicant had no legal right and remedy to demand damages. In view of the serious disputes and differences that have arisen between the applicant and the respondent regarding the performance of the obligations under the contracts dated 21.10.2008 and 20.10.2008, the applicant by notices dated 4.11.2009 and 21.11.2009 invoked the arbitration clause and requested the respondent to nominate an arbitrator of their choice. As there was no satisfactory response from the respondent, the applicant, as per the terms and conditions of the contracts, nominated Justice Sri Rangarajan, a retired Judge of this Court as Arbitrator on behalf of the applicant and issued a notice dated 10.2.2010 to the respondent. The respondent gave a reply dated 27.2.2010 contending that the premature termination of the contracts was illegal. However it did not choose to nominate arbitrator on their behalf. Hence the present application under Section 11 of the Act for appointment of an arbitrator. I have heard the learned counsel for both parties and perused the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent. It is apparent from the pleadings that various disputes and differences arose between the parties with regard to execution of the works that were entrusted under the contracts dated 21.10.2008 and 20.10.2008. Since both the parties are governed by the terms and conditions of the said contracts including arbitration clause, the said disputes and differences are required to be resolved by way of arbitration. The learned counsel for both parties agreed before this Court for reference to arbitration by sole arbitrator. Accordingly, Dr. Justice Motilal B. Naik, a former Judge of this Court is hereby appointed as sole arbitrator to resolve the disputes and differences between the parties arising out of the contracts dated 21.10.2008 and 20.10.2008. The learned Arbitrator is at liberty to fix his fees and the same shall be borne by both the parties equally. The Arbitration Application is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 01.04.2011 gbs