The central legal point established in the judgment is the narrow scope of examination under Section 11(6A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, leading to the appointment of a sole arbitrator.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Arbitration Original Petition filed under Section 11 (6)(a)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 read with Rule 2 of the appointment of the Arbitrators of Madras High Court Scheme, 1996 seeking appointment of an arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the petitioner and the respondents in terms of Clause 18 of the Deed of Partnership dated 01.04.2008 and for the cost of this petition.)

1. This order will now dispose of the captioned matter.

2. This order has to be read in conjunction with and in continuation of earlier proceedings made in the previous listing on 28.03.2022, which reads as follows:

'Captioned 'Arbitration Original Petition' [hereinafter 'Arb OP' for the sake of convenience and clarity] has been presented in this Court on 15.02.2022 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].

2. Mr.P.Suresh Srinivasan, learned counsel on record for petitioner who is before this Court submits that the captioned Arb OP is predicated on clause 18 of a 'partnership deed dated 01.04.2008' [hereinafter 'primary contract' for the sake of convenience and clarity].

3. Clause 18 of primary contract reads as follows:

18. Any difference or dispute among partners as regards the interpretation of the present or any other matter touching the partnership shall be referred to arbitration and shall be settled by means of arbitration.'

4. Aforementioned clause 18 of primary contract 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 is learned counsel's say. Learned counsel submits that trigger notice is dated 02.11.2021 and respondents sent a reply dated 22.11.2021 not agreeing for arbitration, necessitating the presentation of captioned Arb OP in this Court.

5. In the 22.11.2021 reply, there is a mention about a suit in O.S.No.455 of 2019 filed by the petitioner. This Court is informed that this suit is pending on the file of District Munsif Court, Alandur and learned counsel submits that this suit has nothing to do with arbitration.

6. Issue notice to respondents returnable in three weeks i.e., returnable by 18.04.2022. Private notice permitted.

7. List on 18.04.2022.'

3. The short forms, abbreviations and short references used in the proceedings made in the earlier listing on 28.03.2022 will continue to be used in the instant order also for the sake of convenience and clarity.

4. Post 28.03.2022 proceedings, all the five respondents have been duly served. Mr.R.Subramanian, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.P.Vasantha Kumar, learned counsel for respondents 3 to 5 are before this Court. To be noted, Mr.P.Suresh Srinivasan, learned counsel on record for the sole petitioner is also before this Court. Learned counsel for respondents, namely Mr.R.Subramanian and Mr.P.Vasantha Kumar submit that they are not resisting the prayer of the petitioner for appointment of a sole Arbitrator. This makes the task of disposal of captioned matter fairly simple.

5. Before doing that, this Court deems it appropriate to make it clear that the stated position of the respondents is only with regard to existence of arbitration agreement and appointment of Arbitrator. In other words, the respondents are not making any concession or giving any consent qua the lis. This also means that all questions are left open to be decided by a Hon'ble sole Arbitrator to be appointed by this Court (elsewhere infra in this order).

7. This Court is informed that the primary contract is a Partnership Deed dated 01.04.2008 and the partners are members of one family i.e., father and his four daughters. Considering the scope of a legal drill under Section 11, it is not necessary to dilate any further on this aspect of the matter. Suffice to say that a legal drill under Section 11 should peramb