JUDGMENT : 1. Ms.Anuparna Bordoloi, Adv. for Petitioner Mr. S.Ganesh Shenoy, Adv. for Respondent Mr. D.R.Anandeeswara, HCGP for State The petitioner-M/s.Schneider Electric India Pvt. Ltd. has filed this present petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, against the Respondent-United Telecoms Limited for appointment of an Arbitrator under the Agreement between the parties on a lease of certain premises by the Respondent-lessor to the petitioner-lessee. 2. The petitioner-lessee claims that though the petitioner-lessee had vacated the premises in question and requested the respondent-lessor to refund the Date of Order 12.01.2018 C.M.P.No.76//2016 M/s. Schneider Electric India Pvt. Ltd. vs. United Telecoms Limited security deposit given to the said agreement, since the same was not refunded, a dispute arose between the parties and an Arbitration Clause exists in the Lease Agreement between the parties. A copy of the Lease Agreement dated 20.10.2004 is produced at Annexure-B on record. 3. Clause-18 of the Agreement is quoted below for ready reference: "18. Any dispute, controversy or claim arising out of or relating to the Lease, or breach, termination or invalidity thereof, shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as at present in force and/or any amendments thereto, from time to time. The place of arbitration shall be Bangalore, India." 4. Another similar clause exists in the Services Agreement between the parties executed on the same date i.e., on 20.10.2004 and another Lease Deed for Date of Order 12.01.2018 C.M.P.No.76//2016 M/s. Schneider Electric India Pvt. Ltd. vs. United Telecoms Limited extension of Agreement between the parties under Annexure-E dated 23.03.2011. 5. A notice was served by the petitioner seeking appointment of an Arbitrator on 06.10.2015, but despite such notice, the parties have thereafter failed to appoint an agreed Arbitrator in the matter. 6. An Amicable settlement of the parties was also tried out in the Bengaluru Mediation Center, but vide Report of the said Bengaluru Mediation Center dated 11.01.2017, the parties have failed to resolve their dispute amicably. 7. Having heard the learned counsels and perused the record, this Court is satisfied that an Arbitrator therefore deserves to be appointed in this case u/s 11(6) of the Act. 8. Accordingly, Mr. 7. Having heard the learned counsels and perused the record, this Court is satisfied that an Arbitrator therefore deserves to be appointed in this case u/s 11(6) of the Act. 8. Accordingly, Mr. Justice N.K.Sodhi, the Former Chief Justice, High Court of Karnataka, is appointed to act as an Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties under the provisions of the Date of Order 12.01.2018 C.M.P.No.76//2016 M/s.Schneider Electric India Pvt. Ltd. vs. United Telecoms Limited Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as per the Rules governing the Arbitration Centre at Bengaluru. 9. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Petition under Section 11(6) of the Act is disposed of by appointing Mr. Justice N.K.Sodhi, the Former Chief Justice, High Court of Karnataka, to enter into the said reference of Arbitration and act as an Arbitrator in the present case in the Arbitration Centre, Bengaluru, as per the Rules governing the said Arbitration Centre. 10. A copy of this order be sent to the Arbitration Centre, Khanija Bhavan, Bengaluru, for proceeding further in the matter, on administrative side and also to Mr. Justice N.K.Sodhi, the Former Chief Justice, High Court of Karnataka, on the address available with the said Arbitration Centre, Bengaluru.