1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Arbitration Petition No.10 of 2006 M/s.Sai-Tech Compressors Pvt.Ltd. Petitioner Vs. M/s.Atlas Copco India Ltd. Respondent Mr.K.K.Shroff with Ms.Hema Desai i/b Singhi & Co. for petitioner. Mr.A.B.Tanjane i/b Mr.R.B.Jagtap for respondent. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE,J. April 05, 2006. P.C. 1. This is a petition filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The petitioner was a dealer/distributor of the respondent - Company and as per the agreement entered between the parties on 15th October 2001, it was entitled to receive the commission at certain rates on the basis of the sales effected through the said distributor. It is further stated that the commission amount of about Rs.22 lakhs is due to the petitioner from the respondent-company and in respect of it the claim having been raised, the same has not been paid. 2 Hence this petition for appointment of the sole arbitrator in terms of clause 10 of the agreement. 2. The respondent has filed affidavit-in-reply and submitted that this petition is brought by way of an after thought and with the sole intention to defeat the decree passed on 30/8/2005 in Special Summary Suit No.16 of 2003 by the 7th Jt.Civil Judge, Senior Division at Pune. As per the said decree the present petitioner-defendant has to pay an amount of Rs.30,88,285/- to the present respondent-plaintiff with interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum from the date of suit till preparation of the decree and thereafter at the rate of 6 per cent per annum till its realization on the principal amount. It is further submitted that the agreement period has already expired and the petitioner is no more a dealer or distributor of the respondent - company. It was also contended that the claim of the petitioner was considered in Special Summary Suit No.16 of 2003. 3. I have gone through the judgment and order dated 30/8/2005 by which Special Summary Suit No.16 of 2003 has been decided and decreed for the amount 3 of Rs.30,88,285/- plus interest. From the said judgment and order it is clear that the claim raised by the present petitioner for being referred to the arbitration has not been dealt with. The learned counsel for the respondent also referred to the order passed by the trial Court below Exhibit 33 in Special Summary Suit No.16 of 2003 on 4/10/2004 and contended that the claim now raised for being referred to arbitration was considered in the said order. This submission cannot be accepted. 4. I, therefore, allow this petition and appoint Mr.P.S.Mane, retired District Judge as the sole arbitrator for the claim raised in this petition i.e. recovery of the commission amount. The parties shall appear before Mr.Mane within a period of three weeks from today and finalise the further terms of arbitration proceedings including the time frame and fees etc. The arbitration proceedings shall be conducted at Pune. It is made clear that this order will not in any way come in the way of the respondent for execution of the decree passed in Special Summary Suit No.16 of 2003 nor it will help in any way the present petitioner in challenging the said decree before any forum. 4 5. A copy of this order be forwarded to Mr.P.S. Mane. (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.)