ORDER

Surinder Singh Nijjar, J.

1. In this petition, under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Arbitration Act") read with paragraphs 2 and 3 of the appointment of the Arbitrators by the Chief Justice of India Scheme, 1996, the Petitioner seeks reference of the disputes to an independent and impartial sole Arbitrator. In terms of the arbitration agreement, the Petitioner has issued the necessary notice and the Respondent has not agreed for such appointment of an independent arbitrator.

2. It appears that the Respondent is not opposing the petition on the ground that the disputes cannot be referred to arbitration. The only objection raised by the Respondent is that the disputes have to be referred to the Chairman and Managing Director of the Respondent or his nominee, in terms of the arbitration Clause 10 of General Terms and Conditions of Purchase Order (Foreign). The aforesaid arbitration clause reads as under:

Arbitration - All disputes regarding this order shall be referred to B E L Chairman & Managing Director or his nominee for arbitration who shall have all the powers conferred by the Indian Arbitration & Conciliation Bill 1996 or any statutory modification thereof in force.

3. In view of the above, reference need only be made to the skeletal facts necessary for adjudicating the issues raised by the parties.

4. On 6th October, 2008, the Respondent issued a Purchase Order (PO) to the Petitioner through which it sought to purchase the materials/goods, namely, Hydraulic Motor, Actuating Cylinder, EL Motor EDM, Converter and GYRO Unit.

5. The purchase order was issued along with a printed Annexure IV of "General Terms and Conditions of Purchase Order (Foreign)". As noticed above, the relevant arbitration clause is contained in the aforesaid general terms and conditions. The Petitioner claims that fifth item, as stated above, was GYRO Unit EK.2.369.113. CE in 174 Nos. The entire agreed terms of sale by the Petitioner was against 100% payment through Letter of Credit through the State Bank of India, Trade Finance Code of Civil Procedure, 16, Whannels Road, Egmore, Chennai, India, to the Petitioner and the said Letter of Credit was to be opened immediately after getting confirmation regarding readiness of the stock with the Petitioner. The GYRO Unit (174 in Nos.) were to be provided by the Petitioner to the Respondent as per the aforesaid agreement and the Petitioner took immediate steps to supply the said units to the Respondent. The Petitioner made huge investments in that regard and procured required materials. The specifications of GYRO Units, as per the specifications, did not stipulate, expressly or impliedly, the type of damping. While the entire process was going on, the Respondent issued a letter dated 5th June, 2009 to the Petitioner stating that as per the Respondent's directives, all pending supplies as on that date, from the Petitioner were to be "put on hold" and directed the Petitioner not to dispatch any pending items including those for which Letter of Credit had been established until further communication from the Respondent. After the aforesaid communication, the Respondent did not issue any communication to the Petitioner for supply of the said goods till 3rd December, 2009. In response to the aforesaid communication, the Petitioner sent 10 units of GYRO Stabilizers along with the Certificate which was issued by the Russian Company (manufacturer) for a lot of 24 units. It appears that the Respondent, on the basis of the inspection report dated 17th November, 2009, rejected two GYRO Units (out of total 10) on the ground that the same were defective. The defects pointed out were that "Turret not moving in 'Auto' mode" and "vibration in elevation observed in Turret". The other 8 Units were accepted. The Petitioner, therefore, called for payment of 8 accepted GYRO Units and assured the rectification of two rejected units. Through the communication dated 28th Dec