JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 11 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to appoint a Sole Arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the petitioner and the respondent in terms of the Arbitration Agreement/Work Order dated 06.03.2018 under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.)

1. This original petition has been filed to appoint a Sole Arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the petitioner and the respondent in terms of the Arbitration Agreement/Work Order dated 06.03.2018.

2. Despite service of notice, none appeared for the respondent.

3. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner and the respondent have entered into an agreement and the respondent agreed for supply and installation of Digital LED Screen and brandings on Facade of petitioner's branch at Chennai and the total value of the work order was Rs.99,75,022/-. Further, it was agreed by the respondent that if any permission or license is required from the Chennai Municipal Corporation for operating Digital Screens, the same will be obtained by them.

3.1. According to the petitioner, after installation two Digital Screens, the Chennai Traffic Police and the Chennai Municipal Corporation raised objection on the operation of the Digital Screens, since no license was obtained. Though the petitioner sent several letters to the respondent to obtain necessary license, the respondent evaded to respondent the same. Hence the petitioner asked the respondent to pay the amount paid by them. As there was no response from the respondent, the petitioner has come with this writ petition seeking for appointment of Sole Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between them.

4. It is to be noted that, in Clause 28 of the Agreement dated 06.03.2018, entered into between the petitioner and respondent, it has been stated as follows.

28. Governing Law and Arbitration.

(i) This agreement is made under and shall be governed by and construed for all purposes in accordance with the Applicable Laws of India.

(ii) The Courts of Chennai shall have exclusive jurisdiction to settle any dispute arising out of or in connection with the Agreement (including dispute relating to any non-contractual obligations arising out of or in connection with this agreement) and each party submits to the (exclusive jurisdiction of the Courts in Chennai. Doha Bank shall have the right to initiate any legal proceeding against you in any other court, as it may deem fit.

(iii) Any dispute or claim arising out of this Agreement shall be referred to the satisfaction of Doha Bank then such legal dispute or difference arising out of or connected with or relating to this agreement shall be referred to arbitration under Arbitration and conciliation Act 1996 or any statutory modification or re-enactment thereof for the time being in force. The arbitration shall be referred to one arbitrator who will be a retired Judge of any High Court in India. The venue of Arbitration will be Mumbai.

Clause 28(3) of the above agreement clearly states that the venue of Arbitration will be at Mumbai.

5. In this context, the Honourable Supreme Court, in the judgment in BGS SGS Some JV. Vs. NHPC Ltd reported in 2020(1) CTC 681, has held as follows.

84. On a conspectus of the aforesaid Judgments, it may be concluded that whenever there is the designation of place of Arbitration in an Arbitration Clause as being the "Venue" of the Arbitration proceedings, the expression "Arbitration proceedings" would make it clear that the "venue' is really the 'seat' of the Arbitral proceedings, as the aforesaid expression does not include just one or more individual or particular hearing, but the Arbitration proceedings as a whole, including the making of an Award at the place. This language has to be contrasted with language such as "Tribunals are to meet or have witnesses, experts or the parties" where only hearings are to take place in the "venue", which may lead to the conclusion, other things being equal that the venue s