The agreement inter se the parties dated 13.02.2014 contains the arbitration clause as under:- 29.ARBITRATION Any dispute arising out of this agreement shall be settled through the Arbitration as per the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 and the place of arbitration shall be Chennai and the language shall be English. The owners shall have the right to appoint a sole Arbitrator whose decision shall be final and binding.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner initially sought to contend that the arbitration clause is vague, as it says that the owners have right to appoint the Sole Arbitrator.
3. There is no ambiguity, as the owners are the respondents as per the articles of the agreement.
4. The next contention of the petitioner is based on the financial dealings between the first respondent and the second respondent. The allegations made in the notice dated 2.2.2016 are completely vague and in the reply filed by the second respondent, it has been specifically denied.
5. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner makes it quite abundantly clear that the petitioner really wants to wriggle out of the manner of the arbitration provided under the contract in as much as the right has been conferred on the first respondent to appoint the Arbitrator. Thus, the repeated plea is of appointment of an independent Arbitrator. The petitioner having voluntarily agreed to confer right on the respondents as per the contract qua who should appoint the Arbitrator, the plea of the petitioner cannot be entertained.
6. The original petition is dismissed. No costs.
(S.K.K., CJ.) 27.01.2017 bbr The Hon'ble Chief Justice bbr O.P.No.811 of 2016 27.01.2017 http://www.judis.nic.in