JUDGMENT Pankaj Mithal,J. Heard Sri Rudra Pratap Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.B.N. Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Petitioner has applied under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an Arbitrator to resolve the dispute inter se the parties pursuant to the joint venture agreement dated 25.1.2010 between them. 3. Parties have exchanged pleadings and I have perused the same. 4. There is no dispute that the parties have entered into a joint venture agreement on 25th January 2010. A copy of the said joint venture agreement has been filed as annexure 3 to the petition. It contains 10 clauses including an arbitration clause. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit. They admit the execution of joint venture agreement dated 25.1.2010 but submits that it contains only 8 clauses. According to them clause nos. 4 and 5 of the joint venture agreement as filed by the petitioner have been fictitiously inserted. 5. Except for clause no. 4 and 5 of the joint venture agreement as filed by the petitioner all other terms and conditions of the agreement are acceptable to the respondents. It means that the arbitration clause therein is acceptable to both the parties. The arbitration agreement in a contract is separate and distinct. It is separable from the main contract and can be read independently. In referring the dispute, if any, between the parties in relation to or arising out of the said contract,only the arbitration agreement therein is relevant and material and not the other terms and conditions. Therefore,notwithstanding the controversy regarding clause nos. 4 and 5 aforesaid,the arbitration agreement in the said joint venture agreement is good and enforceable. It reads as under: - "That in case of any dispute between both the parties, the matter shall be referred to the sole arbitrator jointly acceptable to both the parties and his decision shall be final and binding on both the parties." 6. The petitioner contends that on a dispute regarding accounting under the said contract having arisen, a notice dated 7.2.2012 was given to the respondents invoking the arbitration clause demanding settlement of dispute through the sole arbitrator and one Anil Mehta was named as the sole arbitrator. 7. The petitioner contends that on a dispute regarding accounting under the said contract having arisen, a notice dated 7.2.2012 was given to the respondents invoking the arbitration clause demanding settlement of dispute through the sole arbitrator and one Anil Mehta was named as the sole arbitrator. 7. The respondents in response to the said notice had submitted reply dated 13.3.2012 contending that the petitioner had not approached the respondents for appointment of the arbitrator in terms of the arbitration clause of the joint venture agreement. The respondents subsequently vide notice dated 13.3.2012 contended that in fact an amount of Rs 2,83,84,460/- is due and payable by the petitioner to the respondents and since it has not been paid one Praveen Majumdar is appointed as the sole arbitrator to resolve the dispute and therefore consent of the petitioner is required within 30 days as per the joint venture agreement. 8. The submission of learned counsel for the respondents is that the petitioner has not invoked the arbitration clause in respect of the joint venture agreement dated 25.1.2010. The notice dated 7.2.2012 is in respect of some other project namely Block B Gorbi Project, Singarauli of the National Construction Company. 9. A bare perusal of the notice dated 7.2.2012 confirms that it is a notice invoking the arbitration clause and names Anil Mehta as the arbitrator for resolving the dispute subject to consent of the respondents. The said notice further reveals that the arbitration clause has been invoked not only in connection with the work concerning Block B Gorbi Project, Singarauli but also in respect of strengthening of Road at WCL Pench Area, District Chhindwara which clearly is the subject matter of the aforesaid joint venture agreement. 10. The receipt of the aforesaid notice is not denied. 11. In view of the above, it can not be said that the petitioner has not invoked the arbitration clause in connection with joint venture agreement dated 25.1.2010. 12. Admittedly, there is a dispute between the parties in relation to the said agreement. Petitioner is claiming some amount from the respondents whereas as respondents are claiming additional amount from the petitioner. The names of the arbitrator suggested by both the parties have not been agreed upon by either of the parties. Therefore, there is no option but to have an arbitrator appointed through the process of the Court under Section 11 of the Act. 13. The names of the arbitrator suggested by both the parties have not been agreed upon by either of the parties. Therefore, there is no option but to have an arbitrator appointed through the process of the Court under Section 11 of the Act. 13. Learned counsel for the parties insist for appointing a former Judge of the Allahabad High Court residing at Allahabad for resolving the dispute. 14. Accordingly, as a person designated by Hon. the Chief Justice in exercise of powers under Section 11 of the Act Mr. Justice R.S. Tripathi, a former Judge of this Court Resident of337/166/1-A, Raja Nagaud Ki Kothi, Ashok Nagar, Allahabad Mobile No. 9415218707 is hereby appointed as the sole arbitrator. 15. A copy for this order is directed to be communicated to the learned arbitrator with request to enter into arbitration and to complete the proceedings in accordance with law. 16. The writ petition is allowed.