JUDGMENT :

1. The petition is filed under section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) by petitioner seeking appointment of a sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute that has arisen between the parties contending inter alia that under the Memorandum of Understanding (hereinafter referred to as 'MOU' for short) dated 03.07.2010 entered into between petitioner and respondent which refers to a Collaboration-cum-Development Agreement dated 27.12.2007 entered into between respondent Company and one Backbone Enterprises Limited (for short 'BEL'), petitioner and respondent had entered into MOU dated 03.07.2010, whereunder respondent agreed to construct three star business hotel out of the land which was subject matter of Collaboration-cum-Development Agreement between the respondent - Company and BEL and dispute has arisen between parties in that regard.

2. It is contended that petitioner was informed by respondent of certain disputes having arisen between the respondent and BEL pending before the Arbitral Tribunal, which resulted in an award being passed on 28.07.2012, whereunder it is noticed that 35.55% of the land equivalent to 14,901 sq. yards is to be parted in favour of petitioner and sale deed is not executed by BEL.

3. Petitioner also claims to have got issued a notice on 18.05.2017 calling upon the respondent to execute registered sale deed in respect of land admeasuring 4786.80 sq. mtrs. which was not accepted by respondent and even after issuing legal notice dated 03.10.2017 by invoking Clause 6 of MOU, respondent had called upon the respondent to appoint an Arbitrator and on its failure, petitioner is seeking for appointment of a sole Arbitrator.

4. Respondent on being notified, has appeared and filed reply denying averments made in the petition and has admitted entering into MOU dated 03.07.2010 with petitioner. It is contended that hotel building which was agreed to be constructed by respondent for petitioner was at the cost and land component, one amongst the various cost components to be paid by petitioner during the course of implementation of MOU and as such, transfer of lands cannot be dealt with in isolation without considering other commercial aspects of MOU. Respondent has also raised the plea that petitioners have never communicated to the respondent of their intention to proceed with implementation of MOU and they have shown their readiness only for payment of land component part of the total hotel project costs if land is registered in respondent's favour but no affirmation is shown for implementing MOU in totality. Hence, they have sought for dismissal of the petition.

5. I have heard arguments of learned Senior Advocate Mr. Navin Pahwa appearing for petitioner and Mr. K.G. Sukhwani, learned Advocate appearing for respondent. Perused the case papers.

6. A Collaboration-cum-Development Agreement came to be entered into between respondent - Company and BEL on 27.12.2007 which discloses that BEL is the owner of Freehold Non-agricultural land admeasuring 35,048.16 sq. mtrs. or 41,917 sq. yards situated at City Survey No. 1868, Ward No. 9, Rajkot City at Canal Road, popularly known as Rajkot Textile Mill Land. Under the said Collaboration agreement, owners of the land namely BEL had agreed to allow respondent to develop the subject land for the purpose of commercial complex subject to various stipulations contained in the said agreement. Pursuant to the same, MOU came to be entered into between petitioner and respondent on 03.07.2010, whereunder respondent agreed to construct a three star business hotel on the land admeasuring 4,786.80 sq. mtrs. out of the total land it had agreed to develop and respondent had also agreed to transfer the built up property of three star hotel together with proportionate land in favour of petitioner for a total consideration of Rs. 63.56 crores, out of which, the price of the land was fixed at Rs. 16.10 crores. Petitioner