JUDGMENT : This Civil Misc. Petition is filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, praying to appoint a Sole Arbitrator to resolve the disputes and outstanding issues between the parties in accordance with the provisions of the Agreement bearing No.20/SBC/14 dated 20.02.2014 vide Annexure `B’ and in the interest of justice. This Petition coming on for Admission, this day, the Court made the following: ORDER The petitioner is before this Court in this petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act seeking appointment of the Sole Arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the parties. 2. The respondents on being notified have appeared and filed their objection statement. 3. The fact that the parties have entered into an agreement dated 20.02.2014 and the said agreement through Clause 64(3)(a)(i) provides for resolution of dispute through a Sole Arbitrator is undisputed. The question however is with regard to the appropriate Arbitrator to be appointed. The petitioner on invoking the said clause got issued a notice dated 27.12.2014. As per the clause, the respondent was required to intimate the petitioner with regard to the appointment of the Arbitrator within 60 days on receipt of the same. Along with the objection statement, the respondents have filed the communication dated 27.05.2016 as Annexure `RIV’ suggesting a panel of four persons for the purpose of appointment as the Arbitrator and the petitioner was called upon to indicate the name for appointment of the Arbitrator. 4. The contention on behalf of the petitioner is that such an appointment as made is not in accordance with the clause due to which the respondents have forfeited their prerogative to appoint the Arbitrator and as such this Court would be required to invoke the power under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and appoint an independent Arbitrator to resolve the disputes. 5. Though the learned counsel for the respondents with reference to the objection statement would contend that the work as entrusted to the petitioner has not been completed, that by itself is a dispute which is ultimately required to be considered by the Arbitrator. Insofar as the appointment of the Arbitrator and the nomination made by the respondents through their communication referred not being in terms of the clause, the very clause No.64(3)(a)(ii) had arisen for consideration before this Court in C.M.P. No. 53/2013. Insofar as the appointment of the Arbitrator and the nomination made by the respondents through their communication referred not being in terms of the clause, the very clause No.64(3)(a)(ii) had arisen for consideration before this Court in C.M.P. No. 53/2013. This Court by the order dated 21.07.2014 has arrived at the conclusion that the appointment of the Arbitrator made beyond the period as indicated in the clause would not be sustainable and in exercise of the power under Section 11(6)(a) of the Act, an Arbitrator was required to be appointed by this Court and accordingly, an Arbitrator was appointed. The said observation is squarely applicable to the present facts. In that view, the appointment of the Arbitrator in the instant case also will have to be made by this Court. 6. Accordingly, Sri. Justice V. Jagannathan, former Judge of this Court is appointed as the Sole Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties. The Arbitration shall be held in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules governing the Arbitration Centre. Registry, to dispatch a copy of this order to the Arbitration Centre, Bangalore. The parties represented by their learned counsel to also approach the Arbitration Centre and file necessary papers. The learned Arbitrator shall thereupon enter reference, decide the matter and resolve the disputes between the parties in accordance with law by adhering to the Rules governing the Arbitration proceedings before the Bangalore Arbitration Centre. Petition is accordingly disposed of.