1. This application is filed by the applicant under section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ( for brevity “ Arbitration Act”) for appointment of sole arbitrator.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the relevant facts are that applicant and respondents No.1 and 2 signed a share holder agreement on 20.6.2012 (Annexure P/1) .The case of the applicant is that the aforesaid respondents handed over 10 cheques to the applicant on 20.6.2012. The total amount arising out of the said cheques was Rs.1,73,83,000/-. The applicant submitted these cheques before the bank, but the cheques were not honored. After certain correspondence between the parties aforesaid, applicant sent a notice on 10.2.2013 by invoking clause 40 of the said agreement. The aforesaid respondents sent their reply on 16.2.2013 and stated that they do not agree for appointment of arbitrator suggested by the applicant. After this, present application under section 11 (6) of the Arbitration Act is filed.

3. Shri Jitendra Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants, relied on clause 40 of the share holder agreement and submitted that the respondents have erred in not accepting the request for appointing of arbitrator. It is, therefore, prayed that this Court may direct for appointment of arbitrator.

4. Per Contra, Shri S.K. Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2 submits that an appropriate application under section 8 of the Arbitration Act has already been filed before CLB by respondents No.1 and 2. In the said proceedings, the present applicant has filed an application Annexure R/4 wherein he has prayed for referring the matter for Arbitration. The singular objection raised by Shri Shrivastava is that nature of dispute involved herein can only be solved by the specialized adjudicatory forum, i.e. Company Law Board (Board). The matter is already pending before the Board and certain issues incidentally touching upon the share holding agreement dated 26.2.2012 are pending consideration before the Board.

5. It is further submitted by Shri Shrivastava that Board exercises extraordinary power enshrined in sections 397, 398 read with section 402 as well as other statutory provisions contained in the Companies Act, 1956. It is contended that plethora of grievance and issues raised by the applicant can be sent out and adjudicated upon by specialized forum i.e. Board and it cannot be a subject matter of arbitral proceedings. He submitted that while deciding application under section 11 of the Arbitration Act, it falls within the plenary powers to appoint arbitrator as the parties have not been unanimous in the procedure of appointment of the same. It is, therefore, contended that when application under section 8 of the Arbitration Act is filed and pending before the Board, this application under section 11 need not be entertained. Scope and extent of section 8 is much wider than the provision of section 11 of Arbitration Act. Arbitrarily of dispute can also be gone into by the Board and therefore, in the fitness of things, this application be not entertained and parties be relegated to put forth their case before the Board. He further stated that this course would be in accordance with law because the application Annexure R/4 is filed by the present applicant himself. In support of his contention he relied on (2011) 5 SCC 532 (Booz Allen and Hamilton Inc. SBI Home Finance Limited and Others). He also relied on AIR 2011 SC 3814 (State of Goa v. Praveen Enterprises). No other point is pressed by the learned counsel for the parties.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record in the light of submissions.

7. During the course of argument, learned counsel for the parties have not disputed about the existence of share holder agreement dated 20.6.2012. Clause 40 of the said agreement reads as under :-

“40. All the disputes in relation to the interpretation of any term and condition of this agreement and the rights, the l