JUDGMENT 1. - Heard counsel for the parties. 2. By this application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 the Applicant is seeking appointment of an independent Arbitrator for adjudication of disputes and differences between the parties. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the applicant was a Cable Operator and the Non-applicant was Cable Television Network. The Applicant and the Non-applicant entered into an agreement dated 1st January, 2005 to operate the cable connections of the Applicant for a period of three years. At the time of entering into agreement the Applicant had 181 customers. The agreement (Annexure-1) contained arbitration clause no.15. It was agreed that on handing over 181 cable connections by the Applicant to the Non-applicant, the non-applicant was to pay 20% of the income from all the connections excluding the expenses and the taxes and it was to make collection of the income from the customers in the shape of monthly cable charges. Keeping in view the position of the Applicant, it was further agreed that the Non-applicant was to pay a fixed sum of Rs. 25,000/- till the period, the 20% income received from the customers reaches to Rs. 25,000/- per month. It was also agreed that in case of breach of the said contract a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- was to be paid to the other party by the party responsible for such breach. 4. As per condition no.15 of the said agreement, in case of any dispute between the parties during the agreed period, it shall be decided in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. As per the case of the Applicant, as the Non-applicant did not follow the condition of the agreement, a notice dated 29.9.2005 (Annexure-2) was sent to it by registered post which was duly received and a reply (Annexure-3) to the same on behalf of the Non-applicant was sent by Shri Rajendra Hada, Advocate wherein execution of the said agreement was accepted but other unsustainable defences were raised by it. Thereafter, the Applicant filed an application before the District Judge, Ajmer for appointment of Arbitrator which was subsequently withdrawn for want of jurisdiction. In these circumstances, the present application has been filed seeking appointment of independent Arbitrator. 5. Counsel for the Non-applicant has not disputed execution of the agreement dated 1st January, 2005 (supra)containing arbitration clause no. Thereafter, the Applicant filed an application before the District Judge, Ajmer for appointment of Arbitrator which was subsequently withdrawn for want of jurisdiction. In these circumstances, the present application has been filed seeking appointment of independent Arbitrator. 5. Counsel for the Non-applicant has not disputed execution of the agreement dated 1st January, 2005 (supra)containing arbitration clause no. 15 as also the fact that this Court has territorial jurisdiction. However, he has disputed the quantum of claim of the Applicant. 6. I have gone through the contents of the arbitration application and further considered the rival submissions of counsel for the parties. In my view, since there is no dispute that this Court has territorial jurisdiction and the agreement dated 1st January, 2005 contains arbitration clause no.15 and sofar as the quantum is concerned, the same amounts to touching of the merits of the dispute for which only the Arbitrator is competent, therefore, I deem it proper to refer the matter to the Arbitrator. 7. Consequently, this application is allowed and Shri S.C. Shotriya, Former District & Sessions Judge, resident of 23/117, Swarn Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur is appointed Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. Fees and other terms and conditions of arbitration shall be settled by the Arbitrator as per the Arbitration Manual. 8. A copy of this order be sent to the Arbitrator.Application allowed. *******