The petitioner is before this Court, in the subject petition,

seeking nomination and appointment of a retired Judge of this

Court as sole Arbitrator, to arbitrate and adjudicate upon the

dispute between the parties to the lis.

2. Heard the learned counsel Sri Vivek Holla appearing for

the petitioner and the learned senior counsel Smt. Lakshmi

Iyengar representing respondent No.1.

3. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition, as

borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:-

The petitioner claims to be a partnership firm incorporated

under the provisions of the Partnership Act, 1932 and is

engaged in the business of a Multi-cuisine Family Bar and

Restaurant. A lease deed came to be executed by Mr. Jaideep L

and Mr. Pradeep L in favour the petitioner in respect of property

bearing No.82/4B situated in Doddakannalli village, Varthur

Hobli, Bangalore (schedule property9 for short) for a period of 11

4

years. On 14-10-2016 the petitioner executed a lease deed in

favour of the 1^st respondent firm sub-leasing the schedule

property consisting of lease hold land, building premises along

with car parking space for a period of 10 years and put the 1^st

respondent in possession on the date of signing the lease deed.

On 24.11.2017 it transpires that amendment deed was brought

out making certain amendments to the clauses in the lease deed

and it was agreed that the rent would commence from

01-01-2018.

4. A dispute arose between the petitioner and the 1^st

respondent which resulted in the 1^st respondent causing a legal

notice upon the petitioner allegedly invoking the clause with

regard to arbitration as found in the lease deed and also

proposing to nominate one Sri Gireesha Kodgi, Advocate/2^nd

respondent as the sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the dispute

generated in terms of the lease deed. The petitioner replies to

the notice objecting to the appointment of the 2^nd respondent as

sole Arbitrator. On receipt of a reply, which was in the form of

5

objections, the 1^st respondent approaches Commercial Court

under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

(8the Act9 for short) in Com.A.A.160 of 2020 seeking injunction

restraining the petitioner from dispossessing them from the

schedule property.

5. The Commercial Court by its order dated 21-07-2021

granted an ex-parte interim order in terms of Section 17 of the

Act even without issuing notice upon the petitioner and the

Arbitrator who was appointed earlier by the 1^st respondent

issued notice to the petitioner directing him to appear before him

on 13-08-2021. The petitioner immediately sent a reply to the

2^nd respondent opposing constitution of Arbitral Tribunal

unilaterally without its consent and opposed the appointment of

Arbitrator as it was according to the petitioner contrary to law.

On filing of the objections by the petitioner, a memo was filed by

the 1^st respondent withdrawing the arbitration application filed

before the City Civil Court on the premise that Arbitral Tribunal

had been constituted and interim relief under Section 17 of the

6

Act had been granted by the sole Arbitrator. The petitioner

claims to have subsequently filed objections to the memo

seeking withdrawal of arbitration application. In view of the

interim order passed by the sole Arbitrator who has been

unilaterally appointed by the 1^st respondent, the petitioner has

filed the subject petition seeking appointment of an Arbitrator of

a choice of this Court being a retired Judge of this Court in

terms of the Act.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

submits that the appointment of sole Arbitrator by the 1^st

respondent was without the consent of the petitioner and the

law mandates that sole Arbitrator at the instance of a particular

party would be contrary to law and seeks indulgence of this

Court for such appointment.

7. On the other hand, the learned senior counsel

representing the 1^st respondent would vehemently refute the

submissions to contend that it