ORDER

R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):

This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section

11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of a sole Arbitrator to resolve the disputes and difference between the parties in terms of the Lease Deed dated 13.01.2017 at Annexure-A.

2. After issuance of notice, the respondent has entered appearance through a learned Counsel.

3. Learned Counsel for the respondent seeks to raise an objection regarding the non-compliance of the requirement of the arbitration clause and the provisions contained in Section 11 of the Act, 1996. Learned Counsel points out from the arbitration clause, more particularly, clause 28.2 that the requirement is that each of the party shall appoint one Arbitrator and the said two Arbitrators in turn will have to appoint the third Arbitrator, who shall preside as a Chairman of the arbitral tribunal. However, in the arbitration notice issued by the petitioner on 08.07.2021 at Annexure-L, the petitioner has chosen to appoint a sole arbitrator and has nominated a retired District Judge to be the sole arbitrator. Learned Counsel would therefore submit that the arbitration notice issued by the petitioner being non-compliant of the requirement of law and arbitration clause, the petition should be rejected.

4. Per contra, learned Counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of this Court to the relevant paragraph of the arbitration notice viz., paragraph No.8 and submits that the petitioner has made it clear that in the interest of economic and logistical efficacy the petitioner has chosen to nominate the sole arbitrator. Nevertheless, in paragraph No.9, the petitioner has also clearly stated that if the respondent is agreeable to arbitration by a sole Arbitrator, the respondent may confirm the nomination made by the petitioner. In the event, if the respondent is not agreeable for the nomination made by the petitioner, then the respondent may nominate a sole Arbitrator of his choice and intimate the same to the petitioner within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. Learned Counsel would therefore submit that the petitioner had therefore made it clear that the choice was left to the respondent and it was not compelled on the part of the respondent to agree for the appointment of a sole Arbitrator which was nominated by the petitioner.

5. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondent and on perusing the petition papers, this Court is of the considered opinion that the objections sought to be raised at the hands of the respondent cannot be sustained. It is not disputed that earlier when a suit was filed by the petitioner, objections were raised at the hands of the respondent that the suit is not maintainable having regard to the arbitration clause contained in the ‘Lease Agreement’ dated 13.01.2017. Consequently, the arbitration notice was issued by the petitioner. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the respondent was called upon to confirm the nomination made by the petitioner if it was agreeable for the respondent or option was given to the respondent to nominate. It is also an admitted fact that the respondent has not given any reply to the arbitration notice which was issued by the petitioner on 08.07.2022. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that such technical objections are required to be rejected. This Court has the power to ensure that the agreed terms of the parties are given effect to in accordance with law. If the arbitration clause contains a mandate that both the parties should nominate one Arbitrator each and the two Arbitrators shall in turn nominate the third Arbitrator, who shall preside over the arbitration proceedings, this Court can also make the same arrangements by appointing three Arbitrators and arbitration proceedings can be preside over by one Arbitrator.

6. At this juncture, learned counsel for the respondent sought for a passo