ORDER : 1. At the very initial stage, this matter has been very hotly contested, since the respondent has appeared on caveat and learned counsel for both the parties have made their respective submissions. 2. The dispute relates to the exhibition of certain films in respect whereof a Memorandum of Understanding was arrived at between the parties on 25th July, 2009. By virtue of the said Agreement, the respondent herein was to supply the petitioner a total number of 75 films for a consideration of Rs. 30,03,00,000/- in total plus 4 per cent VAT, as applicable, for a period of three years, with the condition that 50 per cent of the total consideration was to be paid on signing of the Memorandum of Understanding. 3. From the submissions made, it appears prima-facie that there has been a breach of the conditions at the very initial stage on account of acceptance of lesser amounts and also on account of supply of lesser number of films than was agreed. However, we do not wish to go into the said controversy and the said disputes will possibly have to be sorted out in arbitration. 4. It appears that the respondent herein filed an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, before the Calcutta High Court for an interim order and while refusing to grant interim order, as prayed for, the learned Single Judge directed the petitioner herein to deposit a further sum of Rupees Two crores in addition to the amounts which had already been paid. On such basis the petitioner herein would be entitled to continue with the exhibition of the films, which were in its possession. Against the said order, it is the petitioner, who went up in appeal before the Division Bench and while disposing of the appeal it directed that not only the petitioner, but also the respondent herein, would be entitled to exhibit the 28 films in question. The direction for payment of Rupees Two crores was set aside. The petitioner has assailed the said order mainly on the ground that in his appeal he could not have been placed in a worse position than he was when the appeal was filed. In fact, Mr. The direction for payment of Rupees Two crores was set aside. The petitioner has assailed the said order mainly on the ground that in his appeal he could not have been placed in a worse position than he was when the appeal was filed. In fact, Mr. Nariman, learned senior counsel, has strenuously urged that his client was ready and willing to pay the amount of Rupees Two Crores, as directed by the High Court, provided he was allowed exclusive rights to exhibit the said 28 films. 5. The suggestion has not been accepted on behalf of the respondent and it is submitted by Mr. Rohatgi, learned senior advocate, appearing on its behalf that the question as to whether the petitioner was entitled to exclusive exhibition of the identified 28 films, is still at large and is a matter which is to be decided in arbitration since the entire package was for 75 films and not 28 films alone. According to Mr. Rohatgi, the package could not have been split up and the orders, both of the learned Single Judge and that of the Division Bench, were not tenable on account of the fact that the petitioner had itself chosen to terminate the agreement. 6. Having considered the submissions made, it appears to us that the issues which have been raised in these proceedings are of such a nature that till they are resolved in arbitration proceedings, to be taken, both the parties should be restrained from exhibiting the same. 7. It has also been submitted on behalf of both the parties that Mr. S.P. Sarkar, a learned Senior Advocate of the Calcutta High Court, is named in the order impugned, to be the sole Arbitrator of the disputes between the parties and he could be appointed as Arbitrator to settle the pending disputes between the parties. Having regard to the above, let Mr. Sarkar be appointed as sole Arbitrator on consent of both the parties. Both the parties are directed to file their Statements of Claim before the learned Arbitrator within two weeks and the learned Arbitrator is requested to enter upon the reference immediately thereafter and to complete the same as soon as possible, but preferably within a period of four months from the date of entering upon the Reference. 8. Both the parties are directed to file their Statements of Claim before the learned Arbitrator within two weeks and the learned Arbitrator is requested to enter upon the reference immediately thereafter and to complete the same as soon as possible, but preferably within a period of four months from the date of entering upon the Reference. 8. It is made clear that we are not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and the learned Arbitrator will be free to decide the same and all issues that have been indicated hereinbefore is left open for decision of the sole Arbitrator. 9. Till then, both the parties shall remain restrained from exhibiting the 28 films in question and further directions would be given by the learned Arbitrator in respect thereof. 10. The learned Arbitrator will be at liberty to decide on his fees and regulate his procedure. 11. We are also informed that an application under Section 11(6) of the above Act was made and is pending before the Calcutta High Court. Having regard to the order passed today, the same will be deemed to have been disposed of. 12. The Special Leave Petition is disposed of accordingly. 13. There will be no orders as to costs. 14. Special leave petition disposed of.