ORDER :

This Arbitration Request - which has been seriously contested - has thrown up certain novel, but interpretationally germane legal aspects appertaining Sections 11(2), 11(5) and 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter the "Act" for brevity).

2. As is commonly known, the jurisdiction of this Court – for seeking appointment of an Arbitrator or panel of Arbitrators - can be invoked either under Section 11(4) or 11(5) or 11(6) of the Act. Among these, Section 11(4) is called in only when a panel of three Arbitrators are involved; and since, in this case, the parties are ad idem that the agreement provides for a sole Arbitrator, I am not called upon to examine its ambit.

3. The focus in this case is on the interplay of Sections 11(5) and 11(6) of the Act, since both of them deal with appointment of a sole Arbitrator, albeit, in two subtly distinct scenarios. It is this distinction which is ingenuously grabbed by the respondent to resist this Arbitration Request.

4. The petitioner – which is stated to be a private limited Company, incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 - has approached this Court under Section 11(6) of the Act, praying th