B.P. Colabawalla, J.

1. This Arbitration Petition has been filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking the appointment of a sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes which have been arisen between the Petitioner and the Respondent under the sub-contract dated 14th June, 2013. There is no dispute that this sub-contract contains an arbitration clause which inter alia states that any and all claims, disputes, questions or controversies involving the parties and arising in connection with this Agreement or execution, interpretation, validity, performance, termination and which cannot be finally resolved by such parties through negotiations, shall be resolved by a final and binding arbitration to be held in Pune. The Arbitration Clause further provides that the disputes shall be referred to a Sole Arbitrator to be appointed by the Petitioner and the Respondent jointly. This matter was argued before me on 5th February, 2018 and the parties asked for time till 20th February, 2018 to file written submissions. Accordingly, both parties have also filed written submissions before me. Before I deal with the rival contentions it would be appropriate to refer to a few facts, which are really undisputed. They are as follows:-

(a) The Petitioner is a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and is inter alia engaged in the business of marine engineering, geophysical and geotechnical survey etc. The Respondent is also a company registered under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956.

(b) The Executive Engineer, Aul Embankment Division, Aul, District-Kendrapara floated a tender inviting bids inter alia for the “installation of geo-textile tubes embankment with toe mound' at village Pentha in Odisha for protection against coastal erosion. The said tender was awarded to the Respondent, who in turn, further sub-contracted the work to the Petitioner pursuant to an Agreement dated 14th June, 2013 (Exhibit-A to the Application). As per the terms of the said sub-contract, the Petitioner procured two bank guarantees in favour of the Respondent, both in the sum of Rs.1,18,37,281/- each. The first guarantee was a performance bank guarantee and second one was an advance payment bank guarantee.

(c) It is the case of the Petitioner that vide their letter dated 2nd January, 2015, the Respondent wrongly terminated the sub-contract and proceeded to encash the aforementioned bank guarantees. In response thereto, the Petitioner by their letter dated 8th January, 2015 objected to the wrongful termination and encashment and instead considered the said act by the Respondent as a repudiatory breach. Thereafter, by their letter dated 7th October, 2015, the Petitioner called upon the Respondent to make good the losses suffered by the Petitioner on account of the wrongful termination of the sub-contract as well as the wrongful encashment of the bank guarantees.

(d) As mentioned earlier, Annexure-III of the sub-contract dated 14th June, 2013 (“Commercial Terms and Conditions”) inter alia stipulated for all disputes would be settled by arbitration. The said clauses reads as under:-

“Jurisdiction:-

Each Party irrevocably submits to the non exclusive Jurisdiction of the Court at Pune, Maharashtra State, India.

Arbitration

Any and all claims, disputes, questions or controversies involving the parties and arising in connection with this Agreement or execution, interpretation, validity, performance, termination hereof which cannot be finally resolved by such parties negotiation shall be resolved by final and binding arbitration held in Pune. The disputes shall be referred to a sole arbitrator to be appointed by GWRL and COMACOE Jointly in agreement”.

(e) It is the case of the Petitioner that since negotiations failed the Petitioner addressed a letter dated 11th July, 2016 to the Respondent and expressed their desire to proceed to commence arbitration. Thereafter, vide their letter dated 20th July, 2016, the Petit