The presence of an arbitration clause in an agreement, the arbitrability of disputes, and the fulfillment of necessary requisites under the Arbitration Act influence the court's decision to appoint a sole arbitrator for efficient resolution of disputes.

ORDER

Chandra Dhari Singh, J. (Oral)

1. The instant petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter "Arbitration Act") has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

"A. Confirm the appointment of Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.K. Mody, retired Judge Madhya Pradesh High Court to adjudicate all disputes between the parties arising out of the MOU dated 15.07.2022.

B. In the alternative appoint an independent arbitrator preferably retired judicial officer to adjudicate all disputes between the parties arising out of the MOU dated 15.07.2022

C. Any other relief that this Hon'ble Court may deem just and fit may also be granted"

2. A perusal of the background of the instant matter reveals that the petitioner is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is the owner of the shopping mall, namely, 'Ambience Mall' located at Nelson Mandela Marg, Vasant Kunj, Phase-2, New Delhi-110017. The respondent is the proprietorship concern engaged in the business of fashion garments and apparels, of which one Ms. Sonal Jindal is the sole proprietor.

3. The parties came together when the respondent approached the petitioner for holding exhibitions of premium apparels and fashion garments of well-known fashion designers. The petitioner, upon agreement, temporarily allotted the respondent the space specifically earmarked for such kind of exhibitions for a limited period of four months. Accordingly, a Memorandum of Understanding (hereinafter "MoU") dated 15th July 2022 was executed by the parties incorporating the terms and conditions of the agreement of license between them. The said MoU also consists of Clause 8 which provides for invocation of arbitration proceedings to resolve the disputes between the parties, if any.

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted after signing the said MoU, the respondent paid a total amount of Rs. 14,00,000/- out of the total agreed amount of Rs. 88,50,000/-. The balance amount in the sum of Rs. 74,50,000/- has not been paid by the respondent till date. It is submitted that instead of making the balance payments to the petitioner, the respondent issued a Notice dated 10th October, 2022 demanding a compensation of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- towards its alleged loss of reputation, another sum of Rs. l,00,00,000/- towards the alleged loss of the designers and further demanded refund of Rs. 14,00,000/- paid by the respondent towards license fee. Consequently, the petitioner, vide its Notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration Act dated 26th October, 2022, informed the respondent that, in terms of the arbitration clause, an arbitrator is to be appointed by the petitioner for redressal of the disputes arisen between the parties. The petitioner proposed the name of Justice Mr. N.K. Mody (Retired Judge, Madhya Pradesh High Court), as the Sole Arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the parties.

5. It is submitted that the respondent did not reply to the Notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration Act and defaulted in paying the amount due in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner before this Court has sought appointment of a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the arbitral disputes that have arisen between the parties.

6. No one has appeared on behalf of the respondent today either to take to a passover or an adjournment even on the second call. On 22nd February, 2023, the learned counsel for the respondent prayed for taking instructions for filing reply/objection, if any, however, the same has also not been filed on behalf of the respondent.

7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

8. The parties before this Court signed the MoU dated 15th July 2022 wherein a provision has been made for adjudication of any dispute amongst them by way of arbitration. The said provision, that is, Clause 8 of the MoU, is reproduced hereunder:

"8. Arbitration and Jurisdiction:

Any difference or dispute arising betwe