THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI ARBITRATION APPLICATION No.153 OF 2010 Dated: 01.12.2010 Between : M/s. Siri Consultants, a registered partnership firm Rep. by its partner Mr. D. Tej Kumar, Office at 7-1-79/A, Dharamkaran Road, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. … Applicant And M/s. Amoda Spintex Private Limited, rep. by Its Managing Director, regd. office at 207, Imperial Apartments, Greenlands, Ameerpet, Hyderabad Or factory at Ravikampadu Village, S.M. Peta Post, Jaggayapet, Krishna District. .. Respondent THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI ARBITRATION APPLICATION No.153 OF 2010 ORDER : This application is filed under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with a prayer to appoint an arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the applicant and the respondent arising out of the agreement, dated 7.7.2006. Despite notice, the respondent did not choose to appear. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant. The facts, in brief, are as under : The applicant is a registered partnership firm, which is engaged in the Civil Architectural and Structural Engineering Services and Consultants. By agreement, dated 7.7.2006, the respondent had appointed the petitioner as consultant for the construction work of spinning mills at Ravikampadu Village, Krishna District. As per the terms and conditions agreed upon, the respondent shall pay 1.5% of the total cost of the project towards consultancy fee. The applicant had submitted the bills for the works completed. It is stated that the respondent paid part of the amount payable to the petitioner on various dates leaving a balance of Rs.5,74,160/- towards consultancy services rendered by the applicant. Since the respondent failed to respond to the requests made by the applicant, ultimately, the applicant got issued a legal notice, dated 06.04.2009 calling upon the respondent to pay the said balance of Rs.5,74,160/- failing which the applicant would invoke Clause-6 of the agreement, dated 7.7.2006, for arbitration. The respondent by letter, dated 16.5.2009, though admitted the fact that the respondent had availed the consultancy service of the applicant, disputed his claim for remuneration. The applicant then got issued another notice dated 20.08.2009 by registered post invoking the arbitration clause and by nominating the arbitrators for adjudication of the disputed claim between the parties. Since the respondent failed to respond, the present application has been filed to appoint an arbitrator to adjudicate the claims of the applicant as per law. A copy of the agreement, dated 7.7.2006, executed between the applicant and the respondent has been placed before this Court. Clause 6 of the said agreement, which provides for arbitration reads as under: 6. ARBITRATION :- In the event of any disputes or differences arising or touching upon the terms of this agreement shall be settled amicably failing which such disputes shall be resolved by reference to arbitrator. The decision of the arbitrator shall be final and binding on both the parties in accordance with the laws governing Arbitration and Conciliation Act in force. The Courts at Hyderabad shall only have legal jurisdiction.” The facts noticed above would show that a dispute pertaining to the claim of the appellant towards consultancy services rendered by him has arisen and the said dispute is arbitral in view of clause-6 of the Agreement dated 7.7.2006. Hence it is considered just and necessary that the dispute is referred to an arbitrator for resolving the same. Accordingly, Sri V.V. Raghavan, Retired District Judge is hereby appointed as Arbitrator to resolve the above said dispute and pass an award in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The learned arbitrator is at liberty to fix his own fee for the services rendered. The Arbitration Application is accordingly disposed of. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 01.12.2010 gbs