Judgment : This application is filed under Section 11(5) and (6) of the Arbitration and Reconciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act') seeking appointment of an arbitrator for resolution of the disputes arising out of the agreement dated 09.08.2008 executed between the petitioner and the respondent company. It is stated that the respondent had awarded a contract to the applicant for Structural Glazing and ACP Cladding work for SDF-1 Building at Rajiv Gems Park, Hyderabad and accordingly a contract dated 09.08.2008 was entered into with the petitioner. The total value of the work initially agreed was Rs.64,64,590/-. While the work was in progress, the respondent by letter dated 04.02.2009 requested the applicant to stop all the works for the time being stating that due to the current economy slow down they were unable to sustain their investment plans for the project. The applicant was also requested to submit his final bill to meet the final settlement for the executed works. Accordingly, the applicant submitted the bill dated 06.04.2009 for Rs.31,38,206/- for payment. Alleging that the respondent failed to pay the said amount the applicant got issued a legal notice dated 05.02.2010 calling upon the respondent to pay the amount due within a period of one week failing which appropriate proceedings would be initiated for recovery of the amount. It was also stated in the said notice that as per the contract dated 09.08.2008 it was agreed to resolve the dispute under the Arbitration and Reconciliation Act, 1996 and that invoking the said arbitration clause, the applicant had appointed Justice Sri S. Dasaratharama Reddy, a retired Judge of this Court, as Arbitrator to resolve the dispute arising under the contract. It is alleged that though the said legal notice was served on 13.02.2010, the respondent failed to respond. Hence, the present application. The respondent filed a counter contending that there is no arbitrable dispute between the parties and therefore, the Application for appointment of Arbitrator is not maintainable. I have heard Sri Kishore Rai, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material available on record. The fact that the applicant was awarded the work under the contract dated 09.08.2008 is not in dispute. I have heard Sri Kishore Rai, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material available on record. The fact that the applicant was awarded the work under the contract dated 09.08.2008 is not in dispute. It is also evident from the material placed before this Court that the respondent by letter dated 4.2.2009 while directing the applicant to stop the work, requested to submit the final bill for the works executed. The applicant claims that a sum of Rs.31,38,206/- is payable for the works already executed and the final bill dated 06.04.2009 was accordingly submitted. It is pleaded by the applicant that in the discussion held on 22.03.2009 though the respondent had accepted the claim of the applicant and the same was reflected in the minutes signed on 22.03.2009, the respondent failed to pay the said amount. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the failure of the respondent to pay the amounts which are admittedly due has given rise to a dispute which shall be resolved through arbitration as provided under the contract dated 09.08.2008. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent vehemently contended that the Application itself is not maintainable since there is neither a dispute nor a difference between the parties arising out of the agreement. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the plea of the applicant that the respondent had admitted its liability and agreed to pay a sum of Rs.31,38,206/-towards the works done itself shows that there was no dispute with regard to the claim made by the applicant and therefore the question of invoking the arbitration clause does not arise at all. Clause 19 of the Contract dated 9.8.2008 which provides for arbitration reads as under: Clause No.19 "GOVERNING LAW: "This agreement shall be governed exclusively by the laws of India and all disputes arising out of or in relation to this Agreement or the purchase order shall be subject to Arbitration under the Indian Arbitration and Reconciliation Act, 1996 at Hyderabad, further, where the dispute cannot be referred for Arbitration under applicable law, the courts of Hyderabad shall have exclusive jurisdiction. The United Nations Convention of the International Sale of Goods shall not apply to this agreement. The United Nations Convention of the International Sale of Goods shall not apply to this agreement. " As could be seen, the above clause provides that all disputes arising out of the agreement shall be subject to the Arbitration and Reconciliation Act, 1996. The law is well settled that before appointing an arbitrator the court must be satisfied as to the existence of the dispute between the parties to the agreement. While interpreting the scope and object of Section 11 (5) of the Act, it was held by the Supreme Court in VISA INTERNATIONAL LIMITED V. CONTINENTAL RESOURCES (USA) LIMITED 2009(2) SCC 55 that existence of a live issue is a condition precedent for appointment of an arbitrator. It is further held by the Supreme Court in the above decision as under: "The application for arbitration can be made only when a dispute arises between the parties to the arbitration agreement and such dispute gives rise to a live issue. As to what is the meaning and nature of dispute has been summed up by Mustill and Boyd in their treatise on arbitration law titled Law and Practice of Commercial Arbitration, 1982: "A dispute means that there may be a difference of opinion as to the future performance of a contract. For example, one party may be denying that any further performance is due, on the ground that the contract has been discharged by repudiation or frustration; or it may be a common ground that the contract is subsisting, but the parties may be in a dispute about whether a particular act would constitute a valid performance, or whether one party is entitled to give a particular order, or exercise an option in a particular way. If the parties stand their ground in such a situation, a time will come when it is too late for the right view to prevail; one party will irremediably be in the wrong; and serious financial loss is likely to ensue. If the parties stand their ground in such a situation, a time will come when it is too late for the right view to prevail; one party will irremediably be in the wrong; and serious financial loss is likely to ensue. All this can be prevented if the parties can mount arbitration with sufficient speed to enable them to know the true position under the contract before the time for performance has finally expired." In UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS V. ONKAR NATH BHALLA AND SONS 2009 (7) SCC 350 the said principle has been reiterated observing that for appointing an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Act, a live dispute between parties to an agreement should exist. In the instant case, even according to the applicant its claim for the works executed was admitted by the respondent, but the amounts were not paid. That being so, it cannot be said that any dispute exists between the applicant and the respondent even as per the own version of the petitioner. Hence, there is no necessity to invoke the arbitration clause under the agreement. Since no dispute exists for the purpose of resolving, it is not open to the applicant to seek appointment of an arbitrator. Even assuming that the applicant is entitled to the amount claimed by him under the final bill dated 06.04.2009 the remedy lies elsewhere, but the question of appointment of arbitrator does not arise. Accordingly, the Application is dismissed. However, this shall not preclude the applicant to avail the appropriate remedy as available under law for redressal of his grievance. No costs.