Judgment : 1. This petition has been filed under Section 11(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for appointment of an Arbitral Tribunal in accordance with Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, by appointing an Arbitrator for the respondents along with the arbitrator of the petitioner to decide the disputes between the parties. 2. The petitioner is a public limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913. The first respondent company approached the petitioner in the year 1999 and sought for lease finance upto a limit of 10 crores for acquiring several items of Sugar Mills Machinery. The petitioner acceded to the request and thereupon the first respondent company entered into various agreements described in Schedule-I to the said agreements. The second and the third respondents, who are the Directors of the company executed two Letters of personal guarantee dated 12.02.2001, for repayment of the amount by the company under the Master Lease Agreement and the Supplemental Lease Agreements. The fourth respondent also executed a corporate guarantee dated 12.02.2001, for repayment of the amount by the company under the Master and Supplemental Lease Agreements. 3. The case of the petitioner is that they are the absolute owner of the machinery and the first respondent company was holding the machinery as a lessee and does not have any proprietry right or title or interest over the said machinery. The first respondent paid only few instalments belatedly and committed default in payment of subsequent instalments. Two cheques dated 30.3.2004 for Rs.1,00,00,000/- each and one cheque dated 31.03.2004 for Rs.85,69,980/-issued by the first respondent were dishonoured for insufficiency of funds and a criminal complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is also pending against the company as well as the directors on the file of XIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, in C.C.No.17554 of 2004. The first respondent company sent letters dated 04.12.2003 and 19.05.2004, promising to settle the amount due, citing recession and financial difficulties for their default. Hence, the petitiener was constrained to terminate the lease by way of notice dated 27.10.2004. The first respondent received the notice, but the second and third respondents refused to receive it. 4. It is the further case of the petitioner that they sent two letters dated 28.02.2005 and 09.06.2005 requesting the respondents to appoint their Arbitrator. Hence, the petitiener was constrained to terminate the lease by way of notice dated 27.10.2004. The first respondent received the notice, but the second and third respondents refused to receive it. 4. It is the further case of the petitioner that they sent two letters dated 28.02.2005 and 09.06.2005 requesting the respondents to appoint their Arbitrator. The respondents have received the notice, but not chosen to appoint their Arbitrator so far. The petitioner had filed an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before this Honourable High Court for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to re-posses the machinery belonging to it and lying at the company's premises. This Court on 08.08.2004, appointed an Advocate Commissioner, who took inventory and symbolic possession of the machinery. In view of the custody of the plant and machinery vesting with the Official Liquidator as a Provisional Liquidator, a Company Application in C.A.No.1038 of 2006 was taken out in C.P.No.229 of 2004 by IREDA for sale of the Plant and Machinery. The sale was originally ordered by this Court and was taken up in Appeal by the Directors of the Company in OSA.No.226 of 2006 and culminated in the order of remand passed by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court dated 25.07.2006, remitting the matter to the Company Court for deciding the objections of the parties. 5. The first respondent approched the petitioner for one time settlement by their letter dated 10.07.2007. Again the first respondent by a settlement letter dated 14.07.2007, informed that the balance due in their accounts was rupees 750 lakhs and that they were ready to pay rupees 450 lakhs within 120 days. By another letter dated 24.07.2007, they once again offered to pay the outstanding of rupees 750 lakhs within 120 days. The second respondent on behalf of the first respondent filed affidavits admitting their liability to the petitioner and offering to settle the same. These affidavits filed before the Company Court incorporated the settlement letters and form part of the court records in C.P.No.229 of 2004. The petitioner by its reply dated 31.07.2007, to the first respondent, stated their willingness to accept the settlement for Rs.10 Crores, with Rs.3 Crores to be paid immediately and Rs.7 crores within 120 days. These affidavits filed before the Company Court incorporated the settlement letters and form part of the court records in C.P.No.229 of 2004. The petitioner by its reply dated 31.07.2007, to the first respondent, stated their willingness to accept the settlement for Rs.10 Crores, with Rs.3 Crores to be paid immediately and Rs.7 crores within 120 days. However, the respondents preferred appeals vide OSA.No.321 and 345 of 2008 and the same are pending before the Division Bench, which has also granted certain interim orders maintaining the status quo. The accounts of the first respondent continue to show the amount outstanding to the petitioner till date as admitted by the first respondent, but no payments were made so far. The intention of the respondents is only to drag on the proceedings and not to settle the claim. Aggrieved over the attitude of the respondents, the petitioner has preferred the present original petition before this Court. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 7. Clause 31 of the terms and conditions of the Master Lease Agreement, reads as follows: "All disputes, differences claims and questions, which may arise during the subsistence of this Agreement or thereafter, between the Lessor and Lessee touching any matter covered by this Agreement shall be referred to the Arbitration of three Arbitrators, each party shall appoint one arbitrator, who shall act as the Presiding Arbitrator and adjudicate the matter referred to them in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Concilliation Act, 1996. The Lessor and the Lessee are boung by the provisions of the Arbitration and Concilliation Act, 1996." 8. The question with regard to payment of expenses and fees to the Arbitrator came up for consideration in Company Application No.1602 of 2009. The learned Judge passed the following order:- “In so far as the Provisional Liquidator is concerned, he does not have the funds of the company to pay for Arbitration. Other than the inability to pay, the Official Liquidator has no other serious objection. In view of the above, this application is allowed and leave is granted to the applicant to initiate and proceed with arbitration. But the entire expenses are to be borne only by the applicant for the present.” 9. In the instant petition, the petitioner seeks appointment of an Arbitrator. In view of the above, this application is allowed and leave is granted to the applicant to initiate and proceed with arbitration. But the entire expenses are to be borne only by the applicant for the present.” 9. In the instant petition, the petitioner seeks appointment of an Arbitrator. The other respondents viz., Respondents 2, 3 and 4 have filed a joint memo along with the petitioner for appointment of Mr.S.Santhanakrishnan, a retired District and Sessions Judge, as Arbitrator. Only the first respondent is not forthcoming in their response to the petitioner's request. 10. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the petitioner-company has made out a case for appointment of an Arbitrator for settlement of the disputes between the parties. Therefore, without going into the merits of the matter, I hereby appoint Thiru. Mr.Santhanakrishnan, retired District and Sessions Judge, as a Sole Arbitrator to decide the disputes between the parties. The Arbitrator shall enter upon the reference and after issuing notice to all the parties and upon hearing them, pass an award as expeditiously as possible. The Arbitrator is at liberty to fix the remuneration and other incidental expenses, which shall be borne by the petitioner, Respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 equally initially. Thereafter, the Arbitrator may fix the liability of payment of fee and expenses on the first respondent also in its award. The first respondent is at liberty to appear before the Arbitrator and put forward their case in the arbitration proceedings. 11. The original petition is accordingly allowed.