JUDGMENT :

Prayer: Arbitration Original Petition filed under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, praying to appoint an Arbitrator to adjudicate and resolve the dispute between the petitioner and respondent in terms of the Construction Agreement dated 31.03.2017.

1. This Arbitration Original Petition has been filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking for appointment of an Arbitrator under the Construction Agreement dated 31.03.2017, entered into between the petitioner and the respondent.

2. There seems to be some disputes between the parties. There is an Arbitration Clause under the Construction Agreement dated 31.03.2017, which is extracted under:

“14. ARBITRATION:

14.1 All disputes, controversies or differences which may arise between the parties herein out of or in relation to or in connection with this agreement, the interpretation thereof, or its breach that have not been resolved between the parties by mutual discussions shall be referred to arbitration. The venue of the arbitration shall be CHENNAI and the proceedings shall be English language and in accordance with and subject to the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, or any modification or re-enactment thereof for the time being in force.

14.2. Subject to the forgoing, the parties agree that the Courts at Chennai shall have the exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate upon matters relating to the rights and obligations of the parties under the terms of this agreement.””

3. The petitioner had received an Advocate notice dated 10.12.2020 seeking for his consent for appointment of Mrs.S.Kavitha, as an Arbitrator, for which, the petitioner has responded through his reply dated 08.01.2020, rejecting the request made by the respondent for appointment of Mrs.S.Kavitha, as the Arbitrator. There seems to be no consensus between the parties for appointment of the named Arbitrator. In such circumstances, this petition has been filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking for appointment of an Arbitrator.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

5. Admittedly, under the Construction Agreement dated 31.03.2017, as referred to supra, there is an Arbitration Agreement. As seen from the exchange of notices between the parties, there seems to be some disputes between them. As there is an Arbitration Agreement, this Court will have to be necessarily appointed an Arbitrator, since there is no consensus between the parties for the named Arbitrator.

6. By order dated 14.06.2021, passed in OA.Nos.94 and 95 of 2021 filed by the petitioner under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, liberty was granted to the petitioner to take steps for appointment of an Arbitrator for deciding the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent and in the said applications, interim injunction already granted by this Court on 18.02.2021 in favour of the petitioner was extended for a further period of three months from 14.06.2021. In accordance with the said order, the present petition has been filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking for appointment of an Arbitrator, in view of the existence of Arbitration Agreement under the Construction Agreement entered into between the parties.

7. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is inclined to allow this Arb.O.P.No.33 of 2021 by appointing Mr.V.R.Poobalan, a Retired District Judge, who is residing at No.4/135, Kovil Street, Kurinji Nagar, Aathikulam, Madurai, (Mobile No.9894908495) as the sole Arbitrator to decide the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent, which has arisen out of the Construction Agreement dated 31.03.2017.

8. The said sole Arbitrator shall act upon the reference and after issuing notice to the respective parties shall pass an Arbitral award on merits and in accordance with law by following the procedure contemplated under the Arbitration