Point of Law: Arbitration - Appointment of an Arbitrator or panel of Arbitrators - As per section 11(2) parties are given liberty to enter into an agreement for procedure to appoint an Arbitrator, in which event, Section 11(6) alone would apply and mandate of provisions therein will guide appointment.

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 that this Court appoint a sole Arbitrator, in terms of Clause 27 of Annexure-1 Agreement – which they assert is a lease agreement entered between them and the respondent - to adjudicate and decide certain disputes, which warrants resolution only through the mechanism of arbitration, on account in the aforementioned clause of the said agreement.

5. The petitioner, therefore, prays that this Court allow this request and appoint a suitable Arbitrator to deal with and resolve the disputes, specified by them in Annexure-2 demand made to the respondent.

6. I have heard Sri.Praveen K.Joy - learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.G.Sreekumar Chelur - learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

7. Sri.G.Sreekumar - learned counsel appearing for the respondent, contested the arguments made on behalf of the petitioner by Sri.Praveen K.Joy, arguing that this Arbitration Request is not maintainable for various reasons. He submitted that, for the first, the grounds raised by the petitioner ineluctably disclose that they have, in fact, approached this Court under Section 11(5) of the Act, though styling it as being under Section 11(6) thereof; and therefore, that unless thirty days have expired after they made their demand to his client, through Annexure-2 notice, for appointment of an Arbitrator, this Arbitration Request is rendered premature and hence not maintainable.

8. As the second ground in opposition to this Arbitration Request, Sri.G.Sreekumar contended that Annexure-1 agreement does not provide for arbitration of disputes relating to the lease arrangement, which can only be considered by a competent Rent Control Board.

9. Sri.G.Sreekumar, thereafter, expatiated his first of the afore contentions saying that, as is indubitable from the pleadings on record, petitioner had sought for appointment of an Arbitrator through Annexure-2 notice dated 27.11.2020 while he approached this Court for appointment of an Arbitrator, under the aegis of the present request, on 12.12.2020. He then took me through the grounds impelled by the petitioner in this case, particularly Ground G, which avers that the “statutory thirty days period has expired” and it is, therefore, that he has filed this Arbitration Request.

10. Sri.G.Sreekumar thus vehemently argued that what is relevant is not the provision of law, which the petitioner says they have invoked, but what this Court discovers from the pleadings and materials; which he ingeminatingly asserts, can only be Section 11(5) of the Act. He added that his client has, therefore, filed I.A.No.1 of 2021 seeking that this Arbitration Request be dismissed for these reasons and prayed that it be allowed.

11. Sri.Praveen K.Joy, on the other hand, defended the maintainability of this Arbitration Request, contending that his client