PNP 1 ARP56-25.2.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO.56 OF 2010 ICC Reality (India) Ltd. ..Petitioner. versus Store One Retail India Ltd. ..Respondent. ..... Mr. A.M. Savagave i/b Mr. S.S. Patwardhan for the Petitioner. None for the Respondent. ...... CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J. 25 February 2011. P.C. : 1. This is a Petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. 2. A business conducting agreement was entered into between the Petitioner and a company by the name of Pyramid Retail Limited. Under the agreement, the Petitioner who is the owner of certain premises admeasuring 49,354.50 sq. ft, bearing Unit No.6 situated at the ICC Tech Park at Senapati Bapat Road, Pune granted the premises to the Respondent inter alia on a revenue sharing basis. Clause 13.1 of the agreement provides for a resolution of disputes through arbitration by a sole arbitrator to be appointed by mutual agreement between the parties. The name of Pyramid Retail Limited was changed to India Bulls Retail Services Limited and thereafter to Store One Retail (India) Limited. Copies of the certificates of incorporation PNP 2 ARP56-25.2.sxw consequent upon change of name, issued by the Government of India in the Ministry of Corporate Affairs are annexed to the Petition. The Respondent addressed a notice dated 18 May 2010 to the Petitioner. While adverting in that notice to an earlier notice dated 1 April 2010 calling upon the Petitioner to remedy certain alleged breaches of representations, warranties and other obligations and covenants within thirty days, the Respondent communicated that the agreement stood terminated upon the failure of the Petitioner to rectify the alleged breaches. The Petitioner raised a dispute by a communication dated 19 July 2010. Subsequently by a letter dated 8 September 2010 the Petitioner invoked arbitration and suggested the name of an arbitrator to act as sole arbitrator in pursuance of Clause 13.1 of the agreement. The Respondent by its letter dated 5 October 2010 did not dispute the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement, but suggested the name of an alternate arbitrator. Parties have not agreed upon the appointment of an arbitrator. Hence, the jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Section 11(6). Notice was issued by the Court on 11 February 2011 and permission was granted to the Petitioner to serve an advocate s notice upon the Respondent. An ’ affidavit of service has been filed. The Respondent has not entered appearance. From the letter of the Respondent dated 8 September 2010 it is evident that neither the existence of disputes nor of the arbitration agreement has been questioned. 3. In these circumstances, it would be necessary to exercise a jurisdiction under Section 11(6) by appointing a sole arbitrator in terms of Clause 13 of the agreement. The Petition is accordingly disposed of by appointing Hon ble Shri Justice A.P. Shah, Former ’ PNP 3 ARP56-25.2.sxw Judge of this Court and Former Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court as sole arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to forthwith communicate a copy of this order to the Learned Arbitrator together with a memorandum containing the address of the parties. (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.)