1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 917 OF 2007 (M/s. Shree Mahaveer Servo Petrol Point vs. I.O.C. Ltd. & Ors. ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. AUGUST 26, 2008. Heard Shri Kulkarni, Advocate for the applicant and Shri Joshi, Advocate for the respondents. The learned counsel for the respondents has raised preliminary objection by pointing out that in both agreements between parties i.e. dealership agreement and agreement of lease, Arbitrator is already mentioned and as such there is no question of the applicant seeking concurrence of the respondents for appointment of any Arbitrator. He states that the applicant straightway ought to have approached the Arbitrators as mentioned in clause No. 67 of the first agreement and clause (V)(c) of second agreement. He further argues that though it is the stand of present respondents, to whom legal notice has been issued, that there is no arbitral dispute, the question can be looked into by the respective Arbitrators while considering the 2 controversy. Shri Kulkarni, Advocate states that in view of the subsequent events, the applicant may be permitted to amend his application under Section 11(6) and he further states that question whether there is an arbitrable dispute or not must be gone into by this Court. In view of the specific arbitration clause contained in two agreements between the parties which mention Director of Marketing and Managing Director as Arbitrators, it is apparent that there is no question of this Court appointing any other person as Arbitrator and the applicant ought to have issued appropriate notice or then in any case ought to have approached the named Arbitrators immediately with his grievance. It is clear that both arbitration clauses do not require any consent or volition of the respondents for applicant to refer his grievance or dispute to the named Arbitrators. It is still open for the applicant to raise his grievance and refer his dispute to the Arbitrators as agreed between parties. I, therefore, find that the present proceedings are wholly misconceived and same are dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.