THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI ARBITRATION APPLICATION No.185 OF 2010 Dated: 30.03.2011 Between : M/s. Team IMS a sole proprietorship …… Applicant And M/s. Sai Raghu Constructions partnership …… Respondent The Court made the following :- THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI ARBITRATION APPLICATION No.185 OF 2010 O R D E R : This application is filed under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, ‘the Act’) for appointment of an arbitrator to resolve the disputes arising out of the agreement dated 25.11.2008 between the applicant and the respondent. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and perused the material available on record. The notice sent to the respondent was returned unserved with an endorsement ‘not claimed’, which shall be deemed to be a valid service. The material available on record shows that the applicant and the respondent have entered into an agreement dated 25.11.2008 for availing the consultancy services of the applicant for clearing the Hill County site allotted by MAYTAS. Admittedly, the said agreement contained an arbitration clause as under: “Any dispute arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, including any question regarding its existence, shall be finally resolved by one or more Arbitrators appointed by mutual consent in terms and of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Arbitration proceedings shall be conducted at Hyderabad, India in accordance with the laws of India. TIMS, may, without any waiving any remedy under this Agreement, seek from any court of competent jurisdiction any interim or provisional relief that TIMS deems necessary to protect itself pending the establishment if the arbitral or the arbitral panel’s determination of the merits of the claim.” Alleging that the respondent failed to make the payments to the applicant towards consultancy charges and thus committed breach of terms and conditions of the agreement, the applicant invoked the arbitration clause by notice dated 12.04.2010. The said notice sent by Register Post with postal endorsement was returned as ‘unclaimed’. The other notice sent by certificate of posting was returned ‘refused’. Hence, the present application. By order dated 20.12.2010, this Court ordered notice to the respondent and the learned counsel for the applicant was also permitted to serve notice by register post with acknowledgment due. In compliance with the same, proof of service has been filed by the learned counsel for the applicant vide USR.No.507/2011 which shows that the notice sent by the learned counsel by register post was returned with postal acknowledgment ‘not claimed’. Even the notice sent through this Court was returned unserved with postal acknowledgment ‘not claimed’. Thus, it is clear that the respondent has deliberately unclaimed the notices in this application and the same shall be valid service of notice. Having regard to the un-controverted averments in the arbitration application and since the material available on record shows that there is an arbitration agreements between the parties and disputes arising out of the said agreement are existing, I am of the opinion that it is necessary to appoint an Arbitrator for resolution of the disputes as agreed between the parties. Accordingly, the Arbitration Application is allowed and Justice Sri V.Neeladri Rao, a former Judge of this Court is hereby appointed as arbitrator. It is open to the learned arbitrator to fix his fees and the same shall be borne by both parties equally. Accordingly, the Arbitration Application is allowed. No costs. __________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 30.03.2011 Ivd