JUDGMENT 1. Captioned applications have been filed before this Court on 22.07.2022 inter alia under Section 9 of 'The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act No.26 of 1996)' [hereinafter 'A and C Act' for the sake of convenience and clarity]. 2. Suffice to say that captioned applications are predicated on an agreement dated 15.02.2022 styled 'TERMS AND CONDITIONS GOVERNING THE ENTERPRISE SERVICES OBTAINED BY CLIENT' [hereinafter 'primary contract' for the sake of convenience and clarity]. Clause XII of the primary contract [captioned 'Dispute Resolution'] is the arbitration clause and the same reads as follows: 'XII. Dispute Resolution: 1. In case of any dispute, the same shall be referred to Arbitration under the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 or any re-enactment thereof. 2. The Courts are Chennai shall have exclusive jurisdiction to entertain any disputes between the parties.' 3. The aforementioned clause serves as an arbitration agreement between the parties i.e., arbitration agreement within the meaning of Section 2(1)(b) read with Section 7 of A and C Act qua primary contract is the common say of both sides. 4. The agreement pertains to working space in a portion/certain floors of the building styled Prestige Polygon at No.471, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai – 600 035 and it is not necessary to dilate much on this and it will suffice to say that while the primary contract was operated, arbitrable disputes erupted between the parties. 5. Mr.S.R.Rajagopal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr.K.P.Sathish Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr.S.Thiruvengadam, learned counsel representing Mr.J.D.Srikanth Varma, learned counsel on record for the respondent are before this Court. To be noted, the lone respondent had lodged caveat and Mr.J.D.Srikanth Varma, learned counsel accepted notice for the lone respondent in both the captioned applications. 6. After some submissions, both sides filed a joint memo dated 17.08.2022 and a scanned reproduction of the same [along with docket] is as follows: 7. The aforesaid joint memo speaks for itself. It is tell tale in terms of giving quietus to the captioned applications. Though the captioned applications are under Section 9 of A and C Act, in the light of the consensus between the parties about appointment of an arbitrator and existence of the arbitration clause, this Court acting on the aforementioned joint memo proceeds to appoint a sole arbitrator. It is tell tale in terms of giving quietus to the captioned applications. Though the captioned applications are under Section 9 of A and C Act, in the light of the consensus between the parties about appointment of an arbitrator and existence of the arbitration clause, this Court acting on the aforementioned joint memo proceeds to appoint a sole arbitrator. Before doing that, this Court makes it clear that the joint memo is limited to three facets of the matter. One is the existence of arbitration agreement between the parties i.e., Clause 12 of the primary contract. A spinoff of this is that the venue is Chennai and that arbitration will be by a sole arbitrator. The second facet is that the parties will maintain status quo as on today until the first sitting of the Arbitral Tribunal. The third facet is that the captioned applications [copies] shall be presented before the Hon'ble Arbitral Tribunal with a request to treat the same as an applications under Section 17 of A and C Act. 8. As regards the third facet, if the applicants choose the route of placing copies of aforementioned applications before the Hon'ble Arbitral Tribunal with a request to treat the same as an application under Section 17 of A and C Act, Hon'ble Arbitral Tribunal shall consider the same on its own merits in accordance with law uninfluenced by the fact that this is a judicial order. If the applicant or for that matter the respondent takes out any other application under Section 17 or any other provision of A and C Act, though obvious, it is made clear that it is open to Hon'ble Arbitral Tribunal to consider the same also on its own merits and in accordance with law. 9. Both learned counsel have also on instructions made it clear that a sole arbitrator can be appointed at the discretion of this Court. 10. This Court appoints Hon'ble Mrs.Justice R.Banumathi (Retd.), Former Judge of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India residing at No.C20, Ground Floor, Defence Colony, New Delhi-110 024, (Mob: 7042955477 and 7397329476, e-mail:banumathir1955@gmail.com) as sole arbitrator. 9. Both learned counsel have also on instructions made it clear that a sole arbitrator can be appointed at the discretion of this Court. 10. This Court appoints Hon'ble Mrs.Justice R.Banumathi (Retd.), Former Judge of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India residing at No.C20, Ground Floor, Defence Colony, New Delhi-110 024, (Mob: 7042955477 and 7397329476, e-mail:banumathir1955@gmail.com) as sole arbitrator. Hon'ble Sole Arbitrator is requested to enter upon reference qua primary contract i.e., agreement dated 15.02.2022 between the petitioner and respondent companies, adjudicate upon the arbitrable disputes that have erupted qua the primary contract and render an award by holding sittings at 'Madras High Court Arbitration Centre under the aegis of this Court' (MHCAC) in accordance with Madras High Court Arbitration Proceedings Rules 2017 and fee of Hon'ble Arbitrator shall be in accordance with the Madras High Court Arbitration Centre (MHCAC) (Administrative Cost and Arbitrator's Fees) Rules 2017. 11. Captioned Arb Applications are disposed of in the aforesaid manner. There shall be no order as to costs.