A petition for appointment of an arbitrator must align with the correct procedural section; in this case, Section 11(5) applies as there was no agreed procedure, and jurisdiction is limited to that of the location where the agreement was executed.

ORDER :

P.B. BALAJI, J.

1. This original petition has been filed under section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of a sole Arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the petitioner and respondent in respect of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 19.04.2022 and deed of partition dated 19.04.2022.

2. I have heard Mr.V.Ramamurthy for Mr.M.Anbazhagan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.Pushkar, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the parties entered into a Memorandum of Understanding and also a Deed of partnership on the same day viz.,19.04.2022. Both the MOU as well as the Deed of partnership contained separate and valid arbitration clauses and the petitioner has invoked the said Arbitration clauses and suggested names of nominees to be appointed as sole Arbitrator, in and by a notice dated 05.08.2024 under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.. However, the respondent by notice dated 07.08.2024 invoking the arbitration clause in the MoU and the Partnership deed both dated 19.04.2022 nominated three names, giving an option to the respondent to choose from amongst the three names.

4. On receipt of the notice issued by the petitioner dated 07.08.2024, the respondent has also sent a reply notice dated 13.08.2024 refusing to accept the names proposed by the petitioner and stating that it is only the Courts in Ahmedabad, State of Gujarat that have jurisdiction and not the Courts in Chennai. It was also pointed out by the respondent in the said reply notice that the invocation of Section 11 (6) of the Act was improper.Thereafter the petitioner has still chosen to prefer the above Arbitration Original Petition invoking section 11(6) of the Act.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though the MoU and the partnership deed was entered into only in Gujarat and the respondent also carries on business in Gujarat, part cause of action arose in Chennai, where according to the petitioner the production unit of the petitioner is situated and therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petition is maintainable before this Court. Insofar as invocation of Section 11 (6) of the Act, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that it is only a technical objection and since anyway the parties will have to go for Arbitration to resolve their disputes, invocation of a wrong provision of law should not be put against the petitioner. He would therefore pray for the petition being allowed.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that, the entire cause of action arose only in the State of Gujarat and no part of cause of action has arisen within the state of Tamil Nadu, more specifically the city of Chennai as claimed by the petitioner. The learned counsel for the respondent would also submit that there is a huge difference between invocation of Section 11 (5) and 11(6) of the Act, and on the preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the Original Petition under section 11(6) of the Act, the learned counsel for the respondent seeks for dismissal of the original petition itself.

7. In this regard he would place reliance of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Swadesh Kumar Agarwal vs. Dinesh Kumar Agarwal and Ors. , (2022) 10 SCC 235 . He would also rely on the decision of the Kerala High Court in Tulsi Developers India Private Limited vs. Doctor Appu Benny Thomas , 2021:KER:24896.

8. For bringing out the difference between Sectio