JUDGMENT :

(Prayer : Original Petition filed under Section 11(6) of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to appoint a Sole Arbitrator to decide the dispute between the Petitioner and the Respondent in accordance with Dealership Agreement dated 24.10.2016.)

1. Captioned Arb OP has been presented in this Court on 01.07.2022 under Section 11 of 'The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act No.26 of 1996)' [hereinafter referred to as 'A and C Act' for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity] with a prayer for appointment of a Sole Arbitrator.

2. Mr.M.S.Krishnan, learned senior advocate instructed by Mr.M.Aravind Subramaniam counsel on record for the petitioner is before this Court. Mr.Thriyambak J.Kannan of M/s.Khaitan & Company [Law Firm] (led by Mr.P.S.Raman, senior advocate) is before this Court. Mr.Thriyambak J.Kannan of M/s.Khaitan & Company accepts notice on behalf of lone respondent, with the consent of learned counsel on both sides main Arb OP is taken up.

3. This Court is informed by learned counsel on both sides without any disputation or disagreement that captioned Arb.OP is predicted on Clause 11 [captioned 'ARBITRATION'] of an agreement dated 24.10.2016 captioned 'DEALERSHIP AGREEMENT' (hereinafter 'primary contract' for the sake of convenience and clarity).

4. To be noted, primary contract is between the petitioner and respondent, it inter alia pertains to dealership qua sales, service of Automobiles, spares manufactured by respondent before this Court. It is not necessary to dilate further on facts owing to the limited statutory perimeter within which a legal drill under Section 11 of A and C Act has to perambulate.

5. Aforementioned Clause 11 [captioned 'ARBITRATION'] of primary contract reads as follows:

'11. ARBITRATION

All questions, differences, controversies or disputes whatsoever between the PARTIES or their representatives touching upon responsibilities and obligations of the PARTIES or any matter connected with the terms of this Agreement, whether as to construction or otherwise, shall be referred to arbitration of a Sole Arbitrator to be appointed by HMI. The provisions of the Indian Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 or any other reenactments or statutory modifications thereof for the time being in force shall be applicable for settlement of the dispute, controversies or differences. The decision of the Sole Arbitrator shall be final and binding on the Parties. The venue of the arbitration shall be Chennai and the language of arbitration shall be English. The arbitration proceedings will be on a fast track basis.'

6. Learned Senior counsel on both sides, on instructions submit that there is no disputation about the existence of aforementioned Clause. In other words aforementioned Clause serves as an arbitration agreement between the petitioner and respondent i.e., arbitration agreement within the meaning of Section 2(1)(b) read with Section 7 of A and C Act, there is no disputation about the existence of arbitration agreement is their common say. In the light of statutory perimeter sketched by sub-section (6A) of Section 11 of A and C Act, this by itself makes the task of disposal of captioned Arb OP fairly simple but capturing the trajectory the matter has taken (broadly though) in a nutshell is necessary for completion of facts narrative.

7. It is common say of both sides that arbitrable disputes erupted between the petitioner and respondent qua primary contract owing to which the petitioner before this Court approached Delhi High Court by way of an application under Section 9 of A and C Act, parties were referred to Mediation, the matter reverted to the Court and ultimately, a Hon'ble Division Bench of Delhi High Court presided by Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rajiv Shakdher in and by an order dated 06.05.2022 made it clear that Delhi High Court would not be the supervisory Court or curial Court for that matter. This order was carried to Hon'ble Supreme Court (by the petitioner before me) and before Hon'ble