ORDER

1. LEAVE GRANTED.

2. HEARD THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT. RESPONDENT 1, WHICH IS THE CONTESTING RESPONDENT, HAS CHOSEN NOT TO APPEAR IN SPITE OF SERVICE OF NOTICE.

3. DISPUTES HAVE ARISEN BETWEEN THE PARTIES OUT OF AN AGREEMENT WHICH CONTAINS AN ARBITRATION CLAUSE WHICH READS AS UNDER:

"ANY DISPUTES, CONTROVERSY OR CLAIM ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO THIS AGREEMENT SHALL BE SETTLED BY ARBITRATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES OF RECONCILIATION OF THE INTERNATIONAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, PARIS. THE VENUE OF ARBITRATION SHALL BE BOMBAY, MAHARASHTRA, INDIA."

4. A LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY (ORIGINAL SIDE) WHILE HEARING AN APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 8 OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 DIRECTED THE CLAIMS/DISPUTES RAISED IN THE SUIT TO BE REFERRED TO THE SOLE ARBITRATION OF A RETIRED CHIEF JUSTICE WITH THE VENUE AT BOMBAY. THE SINGULAR GRIEVANCE RAISED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT IS THAT THE HIGH COURT HAS MADE AN APPOINTMENT IN DEPARTURE FROM THE TERMS OF THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE AND WHILE DOING SO HAS NOT EVEN ASSIGNED ANY REASON FOR NOT REFERRING THE DISPUTES/CLAIMS FOR SETTLEMENT BY ARBITRATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH T