ORDER : ALOK ARADHE, J. 1. By means of this petition under section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1996'), the petitioner seeks appointment of an Arbitrator. Facts giving rise to filing of this petition briefly stated are that the petitioner as well as respondent are the Companies incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act. The respondent was awarded contract by the Executive Engineer on turnkey basis for construction of Nagod Branch Canal from RD 0.00 Kms. to 33.175 Kms. including distribution system of Bargi Division Project. The petitioner approached the respondent for some work and had agreed to give work including earthwork, concrete lining work of Nagod-Satna Branch Canal including distribution system from RD 0.00 Km. to 33.175 Kms. The work was to be executed by the petitioner by using its machinery and resources and the value of the contract was Rs. 36 Crores. Admittedly, the parties entered into an agreement on 9-7-2009 and clause 34 of the said contract contains an arbitration clause, which provides for reference of any dispute or differences between the parties to an Arbitration Tribunal comprising three Arbitrators. 2. On 24-2-2010, the contract in question was rescinded. Thereafter, the amount of final bill was paid to the petitioner on 9-11-2009, 19-2-2010, 29-3-2010, 14-6-2010 and 19-7-2010, respectively. After having accepted the amount of final bill, the petitioner by communication dated 27-8-2010, requested the respondent to release the security deposit. In the aforesaid communication, it was stated that this may be treated as final payment against the work executed by the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner sent a notice on 22-11-2010 for appointment of an Arbitrator. Since, the respondent did not appoint an Arbitrator, as per the arbitration clause, the petitioner has approached this Court. 3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had not received the amount in full and final settlement of the dues. The petitioner has merely received the amount of final bill, which does not show that the petitioner has no other pending claim against the respondent. It is further submitted that there is no material on record to show that the petitioner has received the amount towards full and final settlement and has not given any certificate that it has no claim against the respondent. It is further submitted that there is no material on record to show that the petitioner has received the amount towards full and final settlement and has not given any certificate that it has no claim against the respondent. Therefore, the dispute still exists between the parties, which has arisen on account of breach of contract which is required to be referred for arbitration as provided under Clause 34 of the contract. In support of aforesaid submission, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance in the cases of Ramsharan and Ramdayal Dau Co. Vs. Hindustan Steel Ltd., Bhilai, (1980) JLJ 689, Today Homes and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ludhiana Improvement Trust and Another, (2014) 5 SCC 68 and a decision of Supreme Court in the case of Ambica Construction Vs. Union of India (UOI), (2006) 12 SCALE 149 . 4. On the other hand, learned senior counsel for the respondent has submitted that the petitioner has accepted the amount of final bill without any demur. Learned senior counsel has invited the attention of this Court to communication dated 27-8-2010 and has submitted that the petitioner in unequivocal terms has stated that the payment of balance amount of security deposit be treated as final payment against the work executed by it. It is also urged that the petitioner has accepted the payment in full and final settlement of his claim and, therefore, there is no dispute existing between the parties, which can be referred for arbitration. In support of aforesaid submission, learned senior counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Genus Power Infrastructure Ltd., (2015) 1 RCR(Civil) 590 : (2015) 1 SCJ 220 . 5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ramsharan and Ramdayal Dau Co. (supra) has held that the question whether there was infact payment in full and final settlement binding on the Contractor, was a matter which had to be decided by the Arbitrator being a question arising from and in relation to and in connection with the contract. The Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. (supra) has held that the question whether there was infact payment in full and final settlement binding on the Contractor, was a matter which had to be decided by the Arbitrator being a question arising from and in relation to and in connection with the contract. The Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Boghara Polyfab Pvt. Ltd., AIR (2009) 1 SCC 267 , has held as under:--- "When we refer to a discharge of contract by an agreement signed by both the parties or by execution of a full and final discharge voucher/receipt by one of the parties, we refer to an agreement or discharge voucher which is validly and voluntarily executed. If the party which has executed the discharge agreement or discharge voucher, alleges that the execution of such discharge agreement or voucher was on account of fraud/coercion/undue influence practised by the other party and is able to establish the same, then obviously the discharge of the contract by such agreement/voucher is rendered void and cannot be acted upon, Consequently, any dispute raised by such party would be arbitrable." The aforesaid decision has been referred to with approval by the Supreme Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Genus Power Infrastructure Ltd. (supra). In the case of Today Homes and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. Ludhiana Improvement Trust and another, (supra), the Supreme Court has held that while deciding the application under section 11(6) of the Act, the designated Judge is not required to undertake a detailed scrutiny of merits and demerits of the case. 6. In view of aforesaid well settled legal position, facts of the case may be seen. Clause 21 of the agreement, which is relevant for the purpose of controversy involved in the instant case, reads as under:--- "The FIRM shall submit monthly bill of the work done to MCL by the 5th of next month and the MCL shall make the payment of the bill after 10 days of the bill is passed by the Executive Engineer, Narmada Development Division No. 7, Satna, Distt. Satna (M.P.)" 7. Clause 34, which deals with the Arbitration, reads as under:--- "Arbitration: Any dispute or differences between the parties arising out of or in connection with this agreement or its performance shall be settled amicably through consultation between the representative of the parties. Satna (M.P.)" 7. Clause 34, which deals with the Arbitration, reads as under:--- "Arbitration: Any dispute or differences between the parties arising out of or in connection with this agreement or its performance shall be settled amicably through consultation between the representative of the parties. If after consultation, the parties fail to reach an amicable settlement on any dispute or differences arising out of or in connection with this Agreement or its performance, the dispute shall be referred to Arbitration Tribunal composed of three arbitrators, one Arbitrator appointed by each party and the third Arbitrator (as the case may be) shall be selected by both the Arbitrators and where such third Arbitrator has not been selected on account of a difference of opinion among the Arbitrators, the third Arbitrator shall be appointed in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The award rendered shall be final and binding both the parties." Thus, the clause which contains the arbitration is widely worded and it embraces within its ambit all the disputes or differences arising out of or in connection with the agreement. 8. In the instant case, the petitioner in communication dated 27-8-2010 has demanded balance payment of security deposit and has stated that-" this may be treated as final payment against the work executed by us." The petitioner has thus received the final payment in respect of the work done by it under the agreement. It is pertinent to mention here that there is no material on record that the petitioner has either furnished no claim certificate in favour of the respondent or anywhere has stated that it has no further claim pending against the respondent. The claim of the petitioner is in respect of the damages which arises out of the breach of the contract. Therefore, the question whether the payment which has been received by the petitioner is in full and final settlement and binds the Contractor, is the question which has to be decided by the Arbitrator, in the facts of the case. 9. The decision relied upon by the respondent in the case of New India Assurance, (supra), is clearly distinguishable, as in the said case, the respondent had signed a detailed letter of subrogation Similarly, in the case of National Insurance Co. 9. The decision relied upon by the respondent in the case of New India Assurance, (supra), is clearly distinguishable, as in the said case, the respondent had signed a detailed letter of subrogation Similarly, in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd., (supra), full and final discharge voucher/receipt was executed by one of the parties to the contract, which is not the case in hand. Thus, the aforesaid decision also does not apply to the fact situation of the case. As stated supra, the question whether the payment received by the petitioner is towards full and final settlement which binds and precludes it from making any other claim for damages arising out of the breach of contract, is a matter which is within the realm of Arbitrator, which has to be adjudicated by him. In view of preceding analysis, I am inclined to allow the application. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the parties had agreed that if the instant application is allowed, they would have no objection to appointment of retired Judge of High Court/Supreme Court as the sole Arbitrator. It is further stated by learned counsel for the parties that the venue of the arbitration would be Jabalpur. Keeping in view submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.M. Dharmadhikari, retired Judge of Supreme Court is appointed as an Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.M. Dharmadhikari. In the result, the application filed by the petitioner under section 11(6) of the Act is allowed.