The main legal point established in the judgment is the statutory perimeter of Section 11(6A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the Court's adherence to relevant case laws in appointing a sole arbitrator.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Arbitration Original Petition filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 praying to appoint an arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the Petitioners and Respondents in terms of the partnership deed dated 01.01.2019 at Chennai and to direct the respondents to pay costs.)

1. This order will now dispose of captioned matter.

2. This order has to be read in conjunction with and in continuation of earlier proceedings made in the previous listings on 15.07.2022 and 29.07.2022, which read as follows:

'Proceedings made on 15.07.2022

'Captioned 'Arbitration Original Petition' [hereinafter 'Arb OP' for the sake of convenience and clarity] has been presented in this Court on 29.06.2022 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.D.Senthil Kumar, learned counsel for four petitioners submits that the captioned Arb OP is predicated on clause 12 of a 'Partnership Deed dated 01.01.2019' [hereinafter 'primary contract' for the sake of convenience and clarity]. To be noted, originally there was a partnership constituted by 8 individuals vide partnership deed dated 11.12.2018, 2 individuals retired and therefore primary contract dated 01.01.2019 came to be executed creating a new partnership firm. This means that there are six partners qua primary contract.

3. Adverting to the primary contract, learned counsel submits that partnership was primarily for carrying on business in Blue Metal in the name and style 'M/s.Jayavelan Bluemetals', when the partners started doing business, financial assistance was taken from Banks and financial institutions etc., but there was difficulty in repayment owing to alleged non-cooperation on the part of the respondents. It is not necessary to dilate any further on this aspect of the matter and it will suffice to say that this is the main arbitrable dispute that has erupted qua primary contract. Aforementioned clause 12 of primary contract reads as follows:

12. Any dispute or difference between the partners arising in regard to the construction or terms of this deed or any party there of or in respect of the accounts or of the rights and liabilities of the partners under this deed or any other matter relating to the partnership, shall be referred to arbitration, each party appointing one arbitrator or the partners mutually agreeing upon to a single arbitrator and the provisions of the Indian Arbitration Act 1940 and any statutory modification thereof shall apply.'

4. A careful reading of the aforementioned clause which serves as Arbitration Agreement between the parties i.e., 'Arbitration Agreement' within the meaning of Section 2(1)(b) read with Section 7 of A and C Act makes it clear that it provides for Arbitration by either a five member Arbitral Tribunal or a sole Arbitrator by consent.

5. Owing to the aforementioned arbitrable dispute, the petitioners initially appointed an Arbitrator and the Arbitrator put the respondents on notice. As the respondents have been put on notice, arbitration clause stands invoked is learned counsel's say. However, the respondent replied vide letter dated 11.06.2022 stating that they do not agree for Arbitrator suggested by the petitioners.

6. Prima facie case for issue of notice has been made out.

7. Issue notice to respondents returnable in a fortnight i.e., returnable by 29.07.2022. Private notice permitted.

8.List on 29.07.2022.'

'Proceedings made on 29.07.2022

Read this in conjunction with and in continuation of earlier proceedings made in the previous listing on 15.07.2022.

2. There is no representation for petitioners. However, Mr.R.Sasikumar, learned counsel representing Mr.V.R.Appaswamee, counsel on record for respondents who is before this Court submits that he represents both the respondents and learned counsel requests for