IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA APPLN. FOR APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATOR NO. 1 OF 2009 MRS. SUNITA SIRISKAR ... Applicant Versus MRS. MARIA ANGELA MAGDALENA FERNANDES AND 5 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. M. S. Joshi, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. A. D. Bhobe, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 4. Coram:- A. P. LAVANDE, J. Date:- 25th November, 2011 P.C.:- Heard Mr. Joshi, learned Counsel for the applicant and Mr. Bhobe, learned Counsel for respondents No.1 and 4. None appears for respondents No.2, 3, 5 and 6. 2. By this application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the applicant seeks appointment of an arbitrator in respect of the disputes arising between the parties pursuant to the Agreement for Development & Sale dated 19th May, 1997 entered into between the applicant and the respondents. 3. Clause 32 of the said agreement provides that in case of disputes concerning the agreement, the same shall be referred to arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940. Indisputably, the Arbitration Act, 1940 has been repealed and the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has come into force with effect from 16th August, 1996 and the agreement has been executed after coming into force of the new Act. 4. Mr. Joshi for the applicant states that inspite of the Lawyer's Notice dated 22.10.2008 to the respondents to appoint an arbitrator in terms of the said agreement, the respondents have not appointed an arbitrator and as such, the application deserves to be allowed. 5. Mr. Bhobe, learned Counsel appearing for respondents No.1 and 4 submitted that the property in respect of which the agreement was entered into is subject-matter of inventory proceedings and the respondents do not have exclusive title to the property in respect of which the agreement was entered into. 6. Having considered the rival submissions and having perused the record, I am of the opinion that the application deserves to be allowed. The objection taken by Mr. Bhobe does not oust the jurisdiction of this Court to appoint an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Whatever contentions the respondents want to take, have to be taken up before the arbitrator in terms of the Constitution Bench Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of SBP & Co. vs. Patel Engineering Ltd., and another, reported in (2005) 8 SCC 618. 7. In view of the above, the application is allowed. Mr. Joshi for the applicant and Mr. Bhobe for the respondents No. 1 and 4 suggest the name of Advocate Mr. J.P. Mulgaonkar, as an arbitrator. Mr. J. P. Mulgaonkar, who is present in the Court has agreed to be an arbitrator. Accordingly, Mr. J. P. Mulgaonkar, Advocate with office at Porvorim, Goa is appointed an arbitrator in respect of the disputes arising between the parties in terms of the Agreement dated 19th May, 1997. Fees of the arbitrator shall be shared equally by the parties. The arbitrator is expected to dispose of the arbitration proceedings expeditiously. Application stands disposed of. A. P. LAVANDE, J. ssm.