ORDER :

This Arbitration Request, filed by the petitioner, does not have many factual disputations.

2. It is admitted by both sides that Annexure P1 Agreement was entered into between them and that Clause 60 thereof stipulates that both sides must subject themselves to Arbitration, if any disputes are to arise from its terms or relating thereto.

3. It is also on record – as is affirmed by both sides – that an Arbitrator was nominated by the 1st respondent and that the petitioner was directed to appear before him and raise his claims.

4. The petitioner, however, contends that the afore nomination by the 1st respondent is illegal and incompetent under the purlieus of Section 12 (5) of the Arbitration Conciliation Act, 1996, (hereinafter referred to “Act” for short) and under the declaratory umbra of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Perkins Eastman Architects DPC and another v. HSCC (India) Ltd. [2019 SCC Online 1517], which has been followed by this Court in Tulsi Developers India Pvt. Ltd. v. Dr. Appu Benny Thomas (2021 (5) KLT 339); and thus prays that this Court appoint an independent Arbitrator.

5. Au contraire, the respondent maintains that the nomination made by them to