1. This application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and conciliation Act, 1996 has been preferred by one Govind Garg with prayer that an independent arbitrator be appointed for resolution of its dispute pertaining to accounts of firm M/s Avantika Enterprises, Ajmer Indane Distributor, with the non-applicant.

2. The applicant and non-applicant are partners of the aforesaid firm. A partnership deed was executed between them thereabout on 23.07.1986. A memorandum of agreement was executed between Indian Oil Corporation Limited and M/s Avantika Enterprises, Ajmer, on 24.10.1990 in respect of the distribution of LPG Cylinder for the domestic purposes. On 26.12.2000 the Field Officer of the Indian Oil Corporation conducted the inspection of the said firm and in pursuance thereof, vide communication dated 13.02.2001 addressed to the non-applicant, communicated that during inspection the non-applicant was not available at the distributorship for carrying out the operations and request was made to immediately start attending the distributorship functions and to convey the reasons for such long absence in the past.

3. Despite notice issued by this court vide order dated 17.04.2015, no one has appeared on behalf of the non-applicant to oppose the application.

4. Mr. S.K. Saksena, learned counsel for the applicant, submitted that the applicant addressed a letter on 17.02.2001 that as per the Clause 23(b) of the agreement, it was a paramount condition of the agreement that the distributor himself or both the partners of the distributor's firm, as the case may be, shall take active part in the management and running of the distributorship and shall personally supervise the same and shall not any circumstances do so through any other person, firm or body. The Field Officer of Indian Oil Corporation on 26.12.2000 conducted inspection of the firm and in pursuance thereof, vide letter dated 13.02.2001, addressed to the non-applicant, communicated that during inspection the non-applicant was not available at the distributorship business and required him to convey the reasons for such long absence. A copy of the aforesaid letter was endorsed to the applicant asking him why his partner has not been taking part in affairs of the distribution. Learned counsel argued that, pursuant to partnership deed, it was agreed to pay a monthly amount of Rs.50,000/- to the applicant for attending functions of the business of distributorship during working hours. But, such payment does not ipso facto absolve the non-applicant from attending the distributorship from time to time especially on the occasion when inspection is carried out by the Indian Oil Corporation, as per the conditions of the agreement to save the termination of the distributorship. The amount of Rs.50,000/- per month as agreed is not being paid or debited in the account of the applicant. The applicant then also send another letter dated 17.02.2001 to the non-applicant with reference to his repeated assurance, and also advising him to attend the work of distribution, on inspection of the Indian Oil Corporation authority, which was likely to take place on or about 22.10.2001.

5. The applicant then served yet another letter dated 10.04.2003 on the non-applicant with reference to previous communication dated 28.02.2001 stating that monthly amount of Rs.50,000/- to be paid to the applicant, was accumulating and the non-applicant assured the applicant from time to time to make the payment out of the account of the distributorship. Reference is also made to the letter dated 21.03.2005 sent by the applicant to the non-applicant, whereby he was again advised to make payment of the arrears within a week. Finally, when the payment was not made all this time for such a long time, the applicant served on the non-applicant a notice dated 26.12.2014 calling upon the non-applicant to make payment or to refer the dispute to the sole arbitrator in terms of Clause 11 of the Partnership Deed, proposing t