( 1 ) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the contesting parties stated before me that the present cas. e is a case of international commercial arbitration. That was the view taken by Justice Punchhi (as the Hon. chief justice then was) and he had also taken the view on interpretation of Section 11 (9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 that the word "may" employed thereunder has the meaning of "shall". Though there is no written order of Justice Punchhi, I was informed that orally it was so observed. From the point of view of propriety I take this to be the decision on the point in this particular case and will proce"" accordingly. It was also agreed between learned counsel for the parties that if this view is taken as the present dispute concerns international commercial arbitration an arbitrator will have to be appointed whose nationality is other than the nationality of either parties, namely, neither Indian nor American asthe original plaintiff Corporation in the suit which is the respondent before me is a company incorporated in America while the defendant Company is incorporated in India. Hence, in the absence of any agreement between