( 1 ) THIS is an application filed under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the said "act") for the appointment of an arbitrator.

( 2 ) ADMITTEDLY, an agreement between the petitioner and the respondent had been entered into on 18. 05. 2006. Clause 18 of the said agreement contains provisions with regard to the arbitration. The said clause reads as under :

"18. ARBITRATION 18. 1 In the event of any dispute or difference relating to the interpretation and application of the provision of this Agreement, such dispute or difference shall be referred by either party to the arbitration under the arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. The arbitration shall be made by a sole arbitrator nominated by CMD of Pawan Hans Helicopters Ltd. The award of the arbitrator shall be binding upon the parties to the dispute. The parties to the dispute will share equally the cost of arbitration as intimated by the arbitrator. Place of Arbitration shall be Delhi. "

A plain reading of the aforesaid clause indicates that if there is a dispute or difference relating to the interpretation or application of any of the provisions of the agreement, such dispute or difference is to be referred by either party to arbitration under the said Act and the arbitration is to be conducted by a sole arbitrator to be nominated by the CMD (Chairman- cum-Managing Director) of Pawan Hans Helicopters Limited (Respondent herein ).

( 3 ) THE undisputed facts are that certain differences and disputes arose between the parties. By a letter dated 03. 10. 2006, the petitioner, through its advocates, called upon the respondent to make payment of an amount of Rs 1,37,26,620/- with interest @ 12% per annum within 7 days on account of various claims, details of which were given in paragraph 21 of the said letter. The letter specifically stated that, in case, the payment is not made within 7 days of receipt of the notice, the petitioner would initiate appropriate legal proceedings against the respondent at the cost, risk and consequences of the respondent. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, this amounted to an invocation of the arbitration clause. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that this letter was only a letter notifying the respondent of the petitioner's claims and that, in case, the respondent did not pay within 7 days then the petitioner would initiate appropriate legal proceedings. He submitted that this cannot be construed as an invocation of the arbitration clause.

( 4 ) THE respondent did not pay within 7 days or at any point thereafter. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the 30 days period, as indicated in the Supreme Court decision in Datar Switchgears Ltd v Tata Finance ltd and Another : (2000) 8 SCC 151, had expired and, therefore, the petitioner filed the present petition under Section 11 (6) of the said Act on 14. 12. 2006 for the appointment of an arbitrator. On 08. 01. 2007 when the matter came up for hearing before this court for the first time, notice was issued, returnable on 19. 03. 2007. On that date, the counsel for the respondent appeared and directions were issued with regard to completion of pleadings. The next date of hearing was fixed for 17. 08. 2007. But before 17. 08. 2007 was to arrive, the respondent issued a legal notice on 23. 07. 2007 setting out its claims against the petitioner to the extent of Rs 81 lacs. The petitioner was called upon to make the payment of Rs 81 lacs along with interest @ 18% per annum within a week, failing which the respondent indicated that it would invoke the arbitration clause as provided in the contract between them. Since no response was received from the petitioner within the stipulated period of 7 days, the respondent purportedly invoked the arbitration clause and appointed an arbitrator on 03. 08. 2007 in respect of its claims against the petitioner. The matter has now c