Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

• The application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, was filed to appoint an arbitrator (!) (!) .
• The parties had entered into an agreement containing an arbitration clause, and a dispute arose under this agreement (!) .
• The applicant issued a notice regarding the dispute, but did not take further steps until later (!) .
• The applicant filed a civil suit for recovery, and an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC was rejected by the court (!) (!) .
• The applicant filed the Section 11 application after the rejection of the CPC application and the filing of the civil suit, with the application being within the limitation period due to the exclusion of certain COVID-19 pandemic-related delays (!) .
• The court examined whether the applicant had satisfied the procedural requirements under Section 8(1) of the Act, specifically whether the existence of the arbitration agreement was brought to the court's notice (!) (!) .
• It was held that the applicant effectively complied with Section 8(1) because the existence of the arbitration agreement was brought to the court’s notice through the application under CPC and the notice sent earlier (!) (!) .
• The court emphasized that once the existence of an arbitration agreement is brought to the court's notice, the court’s role is not to examine jurisdiction but to determine whether jurisdiction has been ousted (!) (!) .
• The court found that the dispute between the parties had arisen and required resolution through arbitration as per the agreement (!) .
• Accordingly, a specific individual was appointed as the sole arbitrator to resolve the dispute (!) .
• The parties are directed to appear before the appointed arbitrator on a specified date, and the arbitrator will proceed with the arbitration proceedings in accordance with law (!) (!) .
• The arbitration application was allowed, and pending miscellaneous applications were closed without any order on costs (!) (!) .

These points summarize the court's reasoning and decision regarding the appointment of an arbitrator and the procedural considerations involved.