ORDER : 1. Heard Shri Ratilal Sakaria, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Shri Rituraj Meena, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. Perused the records. 2. This petition is filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for appointment of a sole arbitrator. 3. Brief facts which have led to the filing of this petition are as under : 3.1 Petitioner had obtained a fire policy from the respondent by ensuring for a sum of Rs.30 Crores and the subject matter covered under the policy was stock and stock in process as described in the policy for the period 24.04.2018 to 23.04.2019. 3.2 On account of there being an incident of fire that occurred at the petitioner’s factory premises on 18.10.2018 at 05.05 p.m. due to alleged short circuit, it resulted in stock located in the factory premises burnt out and damaged. Loss was reported to the respondent on the same day and respondent insurer deputed the Surveyor who visited the factory premises on 19.10.2019. It is the grievance of petitioner that the Surveyor so appointed by the insurer had not inspected the whole area which was affected by fire and he had hurriedly formed his opinion for assessment of loss. It is also stated that petitioner had sent the relevant documents necessary for assessment of loss. It is further stated that petitioner had given the stock statement indicating the extent of goods damaged in the fire as required by the Surveyor. Petitioner claims that it had initially submitted a claim bill for Rs.70 Lakhs which was subsequently reduced to Rs.35,24,035/- and was paid only Rs.13,39,639/- by the respondent by remitting the said amount to the petitioner’s bank account on 07.10.2019. Petitioner has contended that on 10.10.2019, it informed the respondent insurer of accepting the said amount under protest. Hence, contending that the respondent is liable to pay deficit amount of Rs.21,84,396/-, a legal notice dated 26.03.2020 was issued expressing its intention to resolve the dispute by arbitration as agreed under the policy and suggested the name of the sole arbitrator and called upon the respondent to accord its consent. The respondent by reply notice dated 02.07.2020 denied the averments made in the notice including the name of the proposed sole arbitrator. Hence, this petition. 4. The respondent by reply notice dated 02.07.2020 denied the averments made in the notice including the name of the proposed sole arbitrator. Hence, this petition. 4. It is the contention of Mr.Ratilal Sakaria, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the insurance policy provides for resolution of the dispute between the parties through arbitration and Clause 13 or Condition No.13 forming part of the terms and conditions of the policy would indicate that all disputes and differences arising as to the quantum to be paid under the policy shall be referred to the decision of a sole arbitrator. Hence, it is contended that demand notice was issued, which has been evasively replied by the respondent and as such, he has prayed for appointment of a sole Arbitrator. 5. Per contra, Mr.Rituraj Meena, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has raised two contentions by way of defense to stave off the claim of the petitioner namely (i) that the notice dated 26.03.2020 issued for appointment of arbitrator namely is by a person who has not been duly authorized by the insured; and (ii) the amount has been received without any demur and there being no foundational fact for receiving the amount without protest, petitioner cannot turn around and contend that despite receiving the amount, he would be entitled to prosecute his prayer for appointment of arbitrator or has any claim against the respondent. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of Schmenger GMBH and Company Leder, through its Liason Concern represented by its Liaison Officer Mr.Mukhtar Parvez vs. Saddler Shoes Private Limited, represented by its Managing Director Mr.M. Jamal, reported in 2010 SCC Online Madras 6539. 6. Shri Ratilal Sakaria, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in reply would submit that on 01.08.2019 that is much prior to receipt of the amount and when there was discussion held between petitioner and the Surveyor of the insurance company, petitioner had informed that it was not accepting the proposal made by the Surveyor for the reasons indicated in the said communication and as such, there being no discharge certificate issued by petitioner, after making a show of payment, the insurer cannot be absolved of its liability to indemnify the claim under the insurance policy and as such, he prays for rejecting the said contention and seeks for appointment of arbitrator. 7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for petitioner and on perusal of notice dated 26.03.2020 issued for appointment of arbitrator which is at Annexure-E, it would clearly go to show that said notice has been got issued by the petitioner company through its advocate and for issuance of a legal notice the authorization to the learned counsel would not be required inasmuch as the notice is issued for and on behalf of company. The provisions of Order 29 is a complete answer to the same. The authorization would step in only at the stage of filing of the suit and verification of the pleadings by the authorized officer or Secretary or the Director or other principal officer of the company which would be suing. The judgment of the Madras High Court which is relied upon relates to defense set up by a company who had signed the pleadings without there being authorization from the company. It is in this background the principles of law enunciated therein to which proposition there cannot be any dispute, would not come to the rescue of Mr.Rituraj Meena, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. Hence, the first contention raised stands rejected. Insofar as the second contention with regard to amount having been received by petitioner is concerned, when examined in the background of the pleadings of the parties, it would clearly indicate that the petitioner at the first instance itself had made a claim for Rs.35,24,035/- by submitting its claim and on Surveyor being appointed by the insurer which resulted in the Surveyor also visiting the factory premises where the fire broke out, culminated in discussions being held in that regard. There were also exchange of mails from the Surveyor and petitioner and vice-versa. One such communication dated 01.08.2019 which is not in dispute and which is also admitted by the respondent in its reply notice dated 02.07.2020 vide paragraph-7 would clearly indicate that petitioner had disagreed with the view of the Surveyor and protested. It would be apt and appropriate to extract the very words found in the said communication dated 01.08.2019 from petitioner to the Surveyor of the insurer. It reads thus : “Date : 01.08.2019 To, Paresh Shah & Associates Surveyor Ahmedabad. Dear Sir, Subject: Our fire claim under Policy no. 212300180300000016 date of loss 18/10/2018. This is with reference to your mail dated 22nd July, 2019 on above subject. It reads thus : “Date : 01.08.2019 To, Paresh Shah & Associates Surveyor Ahmedabad. Dear Sir, Subject: Our fire claim under Policy no. 212300180300000016 date of loss 18/10/2018. This is with reference to your mail dated 22nd July, 2019 on above subject. Asking for consent on net loss assessments within 7 days, in absence of which you'll issue the report to insurer. This is pressure tactic to impose assessment without giving justification to rule out or accept our view points. In response of our detailed representations you had requested us to visit your office for discussion. Accordingly we had visited your office for discussions on the issues raised by us. But surprisingly you had not discussed any points on our representation except informed us that insurance company has agreed with your assessment. This is not acceptable to us due to following reasons: 1. We have given detailed costing of reprocessing charges of Rs.8/-Per meter as against you are only allowing Rs.6/- Per meter without any justification. If you believe this number then why don't you arrange reprocessing @Rs.6/- Per meter? It's not fair to allow very low cost without any Justification. 2. You had arrived affected quantities 25% more of burnt fabric ashes randomly without any basis by arguing that fire affected stocks were shifted prior to your visit. Do you mean that we should allow the good stock to burn? In facts our for loss minimization should be appreciated which is as per policy agreement. We had acted as prudent insured and minimize loss at great extent so we should not be penalized by putting invalid arguments. We have given sufficient documents of books of account/volumetric and other surroundings proof to establish our claim while you are relying only on salvage parameters which is against natural justice and not acceptable. At this stage we wish to inform you that we are maintaining proper records system for processing of cloth, at any point of time if any one require details of process stock the same is always available. Hence we are able to provide details of affected stock during your first visit. We are excepting natural justices from independent surveyor's like you for fair assessment without any bias. Please revisit our representation and consider our request before releasing report to avoid future complication. Thanking you Yours faithfully, For, Omkar Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd. Director” 8. Hence we are able to provide details of affected stock during your first visit. We are excepting natural justices from independent surveyor's like you for fair assessment without any bias. Please revisit our representation and consider our request before releasing report to avoid future complication. Thanking you Yours faithfully, For, Omkar Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd. Director” 8. A plain reading of the above communication or in other words the tenor of the letter would clearly indicate that petitioner has clearly and in categorical terms stated that it is not accepting the proposal made by the insurer. On the other hand, it has sought to justify its claim put-forth with the insurer for two reasons indicated in the said letter which is extracted hereinabove namely it has stated the costing of reprocessing charge was Rs.8/- per meter as against the quantification of Rs.6/- per meter made by the insurer being without any justification. With regard to the quantity of stock that was burnt in the fire accident was also disputed by the petitioner and justification was offered to the insurer through the Surveyor. It is in this background the insurer has paid the amount of Rs.13,39,639/- directly remitting the said amount to the account of the petitioner as against the net claim amount of Rs.35,24,035/-. On coming to know of the said amount having been remitted on 07.10.2019, petitioner has immediately on 10.10.2019 intimated the respondent insurer that the said amount is accepted by them under protest and reserving its right to take suitable action as per the provisions of the policy conditions and insurance law. Hence, the contention of Mr.Rituraj Meena, learned counsel appearing for the respondent that petitioner had received the amount of Rs.13,39,639/- without any demur cannot be accepted and it stands rejected. 9. In light of above discussion, the only other question which would arise now for consideration would be as to whether an arbitrator is to be appointed. Clause 13 of the policy condition clearly stipulates that if any dispute or difference were to arise as to the quantum to be paid under the policy, such difference shall independently of all other questions be referred to the decision of an arbitrator has been agreed upon under the said Clause 13 by the parties and as such, the irresistible conclusion which will have to drawn is that the sole Arbitrator requires to be appointed. 10. 10. Hence, I proceed to pass the following ORDER (i) Petition is allowed. (ii) Shri Bharatkumar Suryakant Upadhyay, Retired District Judge, residing at: G-801, Shilalekh Apartment, Opp. Police Stadium, Shahibaug, Ahmedabad, having phone number 9879142279 and Email ID: bsu@aij.gov.in, is hereby nominated as the sole Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties in accordance with the Arbitration Centre (Domestic and International), High Court of Gujarat Rules, 2021. Both Parties would also be bound by said Rules. (iii) Registry to communicate this order to the sole Arbitrator forthwith by Speed Post. (iv) Consequently, all pending connected application/s, if any, stands disposed of.