The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to appoint an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 based on the existence of undisputed arbitration agreements and the exhaustion of the amicable settlement procedure.

JUDGMENT :

1. This application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been field for appointment of arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties.

2. The case of the applicant is that on and from the beginning of 2009, the respondent had issued the following Purchase Orders/Work Orders with identical arbitration clause:

3. Further case of the applicant is that these purchase orders were for the purpose of designing, engineering, manufacturing, erecting, supplying and commissioning of plant and equipments by the applicant. A further plea has been raised that the purchase orders form part of the composite transaction in respect of a project at IISCO Steel Plant and are interconnected with each other. According to the applicant, he had carried out the work in respect of the purchase orders but the full payment was not made by the respondent and the amount to the tune of Rs. 33,49,343.52 is still due. The correspondence was exchanged between the parties and the meeting also took place but with no success. Hence, the applicant had sent the notice dated 03r March, 2021 to the respondent invoking the arbitration clause and proposing the name of the sole arbitrator. Inspite of service of notice, no response was received by the applicant. Hence, the present application has been filed.

4. Submission of learned Counsel for the applicant is that all the purchase orders contained identical arbitration clause and the purchase orders are not in dispute and attempt for amicable settlement has failed, therefore, an arbitrator be appointed for settling the dispute.

5. The objection of learned Counsel for the respondent is that as per the arbitration clause, initially attempts are required to be made for amicable settlement which has not been done. Hence, Section 11 cannot be invoked.

6. Having heard the learned Counsel and on perusal of the record, it is noticed that the arbitration agreements are undisputed. These arbitration agreements in the form of purchase orders contain following arbitration clause:

"7.0 ARBITRATION:

Any disputes, differences, whatsoever, arising between the parties out of or relating to the construction, meaning, scope, operation or effect of this contract shall be settled between the Employer and the contractor amicably. If however, the Employer and the Contractor are not able to resolve their disputes/differences amicably as aforesaid the said disputes/differences shall be settled by conciliation, failing which, through Arbitration at City of Kolkata."

7. The record further reflects that the applicant had submitted the claim for balance amount of Rs. 33, 49, 343.52 on 17th March, 2017. Thereafter, the deliberations took place and in the meeting dated 14th August, 2018, the respondents had agreed to release balance amount by December, 2018. But thereafter, some dispute again arose, hence, the amount has not been received. Thus, the procedure for amicable settlement has been exhausted.

8. That apart in the affidavit-in-opposition, the respondent has claimed the liquidated damages and RPN cost to the tune of Rs. 8.94 lakhs, hence, the amicable settlement is not possible no