JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the parties. This application has been submitted under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. A Development Agreement dated 8.8.2007 was executed between the parties, copy of which has been placed on record as Annexure-1. As per the agreement some development work was to be carried out by the present applicant and to carry out the development work, the applicant was given liberty to generate the funds by mortgaging the property and for that purpose an power of attorney was executed by the respondent in favour of applicant. However, dispute arose between the parties and thereafter the applicant filed an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, wherein interim order was passed by the Trial Court and against that Arbitration Appeal No. 13 of 2011 was preferred before this Court which was allowed by order dated 25 November, 2011. Be that as it may be, the applicant's contention is that in view of the Clause 21 in Development Agreement (Annexure-1), the applicant gave a notice to the respondents for appointment of arbitrator but no arbitrator was appointed. Therefore, he has moved this application. In reply, it has been submitted that alleged power of which was given to applicant by respondent attorney has been cancelled by the respondents and in view of the above the applicant-petitioner cannot act as power of attorney holder of the respondents. It is also submitted that Clause 21 is a Clause for referring limited dispute to the arbitrator and said dispute could have been referred only during the currency of the power of attorney and the Development Agreement. The respondent has already cancelled the development agreement and, therefore, after cancellation of the development agreement, the matter cannot be referred to the arbitrator. It is also submitted that Arbitration Clause says only that in case of dispute between the owner and the developer with regard to the terms of the agreement then only that dispute can be sent to the arbitrator and not for challenging the cancellation of the arbitration agreement or cancellation of power of attorney or the dispute which has been raised in arbitration application. In view of the above reasons, the matter cannot be referred to the arbitrator. I considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and perused the Clause 21, which is as under: “21. In view of the above reasons, the matter cannot be referred to the arbitrator. I considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and perused the Clause 21, which is as under: “21. That, in case of any dispute between the Owner and the Developer with regard to the terms, of this agreement for developing the same will be adjudicated by the arbitrator appointed one each by either parties whose decision shall be binding and conclusive. In case of disagreement with the decision of the arbitrators, one common arbitrator with the consent of the appointed arbitrators will be appointed for final decision and the majority decision of all the arbitrators shall be binding on both the parties.” The existence of this Clause is not in dispute and it clearly says that in case of any dispute with regard to terms of this agreement and “for developing the same” will be adjudicated by the arbitrator. It appears that the arbitration clause is not happily worded but intention of the parties is clear to have all disputes arising out of the contract should be resolved through arbitration. The cancellation of power of attorney and development agreement is also a covered dispute under the terms of the Development Agreement only. In view of the above reasons, this application deserves to be allowed and hence allowed. As requested Hon'ble Justice Vikramaditya Prasad, retired Judge, Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi is appointed as Arbitrator, who may fix his remuneration as well as the expenses for the arbitral proceedings. It is made clear that the parties will be at liberty to raise their claim and counter claim before the arbitrator.