JUDGMENT : Vivek Singh Thakur, J. 1. This petition has been filed under sub-section (6) of Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘Act’) for appointment of Sole Arbitrator in terms of Clause 8.2 of GCC agreement and Clause 8.2 (a) of SCC agreement. 2. In pursuance to tender floated by respondents for supply of various power related equipments under R-APDRP (Restructured-Accelerated Power Development Reform Program) in order to reduce AT&C losses, petitioner company was appointed as IT Implement Agency (ITIA) on the rates, terms and conditions mentioned in Letter of Award (LoA) dated 30.8.2010 (Annexure P-2). 3. A dispute with respect to entitlement of petitioner to avail concessional rates of tax has arisen between parties as petitioner is claiming its entitlement for concessional rate of tax and is demanding the statutory C-Form under CST Act, whereas, respondents, on the basis of clarification issued by Excise and Taxation Department, have rejected the request of petitioner. Petitioner company is demanding C-Form or the differential tax to the tune of Rs. 1.56 crore with interest thereon, whereas respondents are denying their liability to issue C-Form or to pay differential tax. Both parties are relying upon terms of contract between them. It is claimed by petitioner that due to failure of respondents’ board to issue C-Form, petitioner has been burdened with additional tax liability and therefore, respondent is liable to compensate petitioner for additional tax liability along with incidental and ancillary claims and costs related thereto. 4. For resolving aforesaid dispute, petitioner company invoked the arbitration clause contained in Clause 8.2 (a) of the SCC of agreement in terms of Clause 8.2 of the GCC and issued a notice dated 22.9.2015 seeking the appointment of arbitrator by proposing the name of its nominee arbitrator, as according to agreement, the Arbitral Tribunal shall consist of three Arbitrators, out of which each party shall nominate an Arbitrator and two nominated Arbitrators shall mutually agree and nominate a third Presiding Arbitrator. The respondents had to resolve issue within 28 days from the date of notice, but on failure to act upon the notice, petitioner company has approached this Court by invoking Section 11 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 with prayer to appoint nominee Arbitrator on behalf of respondents board or in alternative to appoint a Sole Abitrator. 5. The respondents had to resolve issue within 28 days from the date of notice, but on failure to act upon the notice, petitioner company has approached this Court by invoking Section 11 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 with prayer to appoint nominee Arbitrator on behalf of respondents board or in alternative to appoint a Sole Abitrator. 5. Arbitration agreement envisages two Arbitrators, one each to be appointed by petitioner and respondent, who in turn have to nominate a third Presiding Arbitrator. 6. Section 10(1) of the Act provides that parties are free to determine the number of Arbitrators provided that such number shall not be an even number. However, Sub-section 2 of this Section lays down that failing the determination referred to in sub-section (1), the Arbitral Tribunal shall consist of a sole arbitrator. 7. Section 11(2) of the Act provides that subject to sub-section (6), the parties are free to agree on a procedure for appointing the arbitrator or arbitrators. Sub-section (6) of Section 11 of the Act provides that where, under an appointment procedure agreed upon by the parties, a party fails to act as required under that procedure, a party may request the Supreme Court or as the case may be, the High Court or any person or institution designated by such Court, to take necessary measure unless the agreement on the appointment procedure provides other means for securing the appointment. 8. In present case, respondents have failed to nominate Arbitrator in pursuance to notice issued by petitioner company. Petitioner company has prayed for nomination of Arbitrator on behalf of respondents and in alternative for appointment of Sole Arbitrator. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents under instructions of his client submits that in order to reduce the cost of arbitration proceedings and to save public money, respondents have agreed to the prayer of petitioner company to appoint the Sole Arbitrator. On combined reading of Sections 10 and 11 of the Act, I find that irrespective of Clause in Arbitration agreement to have three members Arbitral Tribunal, parties are free to determine number of Arbitrators and to agree on procedure for appointing the Arbitrator and to appoint Sole Arbitrator with mutual consent. On this count, I also draw support from judgment of the Apex Court in case National Aluminium Co. Ltd. vs. Metalimpex Ltd. (2001) 6 SCC 372 . 10. On this count, I also draw support from judgment of the Apex Court in case National Aluminium Co. Ltd. vs. Metalimpex Ltd. (2001) 6 SCC 372 . 10. In present case, learned counsel for the parties, under instructions of their respective clients, jointly submit that parties have arrived at consensus to appoint only a single member Arbitral Tribunal and to appoint Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, (Retd.) as Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the respective claims of parties. 11. Being so, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh (Retd.) is appointed as Sole Arbitrator with consent of parties to adjudicate the matter in accordance with law and in terms of agreement by making a speaking reasoned award. He shall be entitled for fee as per Schedule. Registry is directed to transmit necessary communication in this regard to the Sole Arbitrator immediately. 12. Petition stands disposed of on above terms.