(1.) The petitioner is before this Court in this petition filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('the Act' for short) seeking appointment of the sole Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties.
(2.) In respect of the terms and conditions agreed therein, certain disputes have arisen between the parties. The respondents herein in that view had issued a notice dated 12.05.2016 (Annexure-B) whereunder it was proposed to terminate the agreement. The petitioner herein through their reply dated 11.11.2016 have raised certain disputes with regard to the contentions put forth in the notice issued by the respondents herein and by referring to the arbitration clause contained in the agreement have sought for appointment of the learned Arbitrator and had also suggested the name of a learned Arbitrator. The respondents however did not act upon such demand. The petitioner herein in that view filed proceedings under Section 9 of the Act in A.A.No.19/2016 (Annexure-D) for interim measure pending arbitration. In the said proceedings, the Court below having taken note of the Memorandum of Understanding and the provision contained for arbitration granted the interim relief. In the meanwhile, since the respondents have not appointed the learned Arbitrator, the petitioner is before this Court in this petition.
(3.) In the above background, a perusal of the Memorandum of Understanding would indicate that the parties through Clause No.14 have agreed that in the event of there being any dispute, the matter is to be resolved through arbitration. Further the exchange of the legal notices would indicate that certain disputes have arisen between the parties which are to be resolved through arbitration. The fact that the petitioner has instituted a petition under Section 9 of the Act and the same has been entertained by the Court below would indicate that the main dispute between the parties is to be resolved through arbitration.