ORDER

Since the second respondent is not a party to the arbitration agreement, learned counsel for the petitioner on instructions has made an endorsement in the Court bundle, giving up the second respondent from the array of party respondents in this petition, which has been filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking for appointment of an arbitrator by this Court. Accordingly, the second respondent is removed from the array of party respondents in this petition.

2. This petition has been filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking for appointment of an arbitrator by this Court. The petitioner claims to be a producer of feature films. The first respondent was appointed as a director for a particular feature film, produced by the petitioner, under a director agreement dated 24.06.2019. There seems to be a dispute between the petitioner and the first respondent under the director agreement dated 24.06.2019.

3. According to the petitioner, the first respondent has committed breach of contract under the director agreement dated 24.06.2019. The petitioner has a damage claim against the first respondent. The petitioner has invoked arbitration in terms of arbitration clause contained in the director agreement dated 24.06.2019 by issuing a legal notice to the respondents on 13.04.2022, which has been returned with the endorsement 'refused'. According to the petitioner, the respondents have not sent a reply to the arbitration invocation notice dated 13.04.2022.

4. Since, there has been no consensus with regard to the name of the arbitrator, this petition has been filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking for appointment of an arbitrator by this Court. The first respondent has been duly served in this petition and his name is also printed in the cause list today.

5. Since, there is a valid arbitration clause available in the director agreement dated 24.06.2019 and the petitioner has also invoked the said arbitration clause by issuing a notice to the respondents on 13.04.2022, which has not been replied to by the respondents, this Court will have to appoint an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as there is no consensus between the parties with regard to the name of the arbitrator.

6. For the foregoing reasons and in view of the Arbitration clause available under the Director Agreement dated 24.06.2019, this Court appoints Tr.N.Balasubramanian, Retired District Judge, as the Sole Arbitrator to decide the dispute between the petitioner and the first respondent. Accordingly, this Arbitration Original Petition is allowed as prayed for by issuing the following directions:

(a) This Court appoints Tr.N.Balasubramanian, Retired District Judge, who is having office at Flat No.17, TNHB, Breeze Apartments, 2nd Street, Korattur, Chennai - 600 050 (Mobile No.94432 34904) as the sole Arbitrator to decide the dispute between the petitioner and the first respondent arising out of the Director Agreement, dated 24.06.2019.

(b) The Arbitrator shall be paid his remuneration / fees in accordance with the 4th schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

(c) Both the parties shall equally share the arbitrator's fees.

(d) The Arbitrator shall conduct the arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and shall complete the arbitration within the specified time as prescribed under the said Act.

7. Registry is directed to issue the order copy after carrying out the necessary amendment in terms of today's (i.e., 24.08.2023) order.

24.08.2023 Index : Yes/No Speaking Order : Yes / No Neutral Citation Case: Yes / No ab ABDUL QUDDHOSE. J., ab

24.08.2023