JUDGMENT : The instant application is under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of sole Arbitrator in pursuance to the arbitration clause as contained under Clause 43 of the agreement (Annexure-1 to the instant application) for resolution of dispute in between the parties. 2. The facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the instant Arbitration Application, read hereunder as:- The respondent Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited issued a policy for appointment of Packed Bitumen Contractor Operator Depot through Contractors Operating Depot. After following the selection process pursuant to advertisement, the Senior Regional Manager of Jamshedpur Office issued Letter of Intent to the petitioner for Bitumen Contractor Operating Depot in terms of letter dated 30.09.2008. On 21.11.2008 the petitioner-applicant submitted Bank Guarantee for a sum of Rs.46,00,000/- issued by the Union Bank of India, Upper Bazaar Branch, Ranchi. On 31.12.2010, an agreement in respect of Contractors Operating Depot for packed bitumen was executed between the respondent Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited through its Regional Office, Jamshedpur and the petitioner-applicant which commenced with effect from 01.01.2011. On the basis of a written report of the Officer-in-Charge of Sukhdeo Nagar Police Station, Ranchi, one case being Kotwali (Sukhdeo Nagar) P.S. Case No.1071 of 2011 was registered on17.11.2011 under Sections 414/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the drivers and owners of two trucks as well as the Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Godown, Namkum. The Senior Regional Manager of Jamshedpur Office asked the petitioner-applicant vide letter dated 02.12.2011 to submit explanation as to why action should not be initiated against him for alleged negligence/violation of the terms of agreement dated 31.12.2010. The petitioner-applicant submitted its explanation to the Senior Regional Manager explaining therein that the F.I.R. was lodged in a pre-planned manner on fabricated facts and the same does not contain any direct allegation against him. It was also pointed out that any incident taking place outside the godown and premises cannot be the liability of the petitioner-applicant. Thereafter, the Senior Regional Manager vide letter dated 13.12.2011 placed the operation and handling contract of the petitioner-applicant under suspension till further orders. The Senior Regional Manager asked the petitioner-applicant to provide additional security money with an assurance that once the stock is verified, the security money will be returned and accordingly, the petitioner-applicant submitted Bank Guarantee dated 19.12.2011 for Rs.30,00,000/- as additional security. The Senior Regional Manager asked the petitioner-applicant to provide additional security money with an assurance that once the stock is verified, the security money will be returned and accordingly, the petitioner-applicant submitted Bank Guarantee dated 19.12.2011 for Rs.30,00,000/- as additional security. The Senior Regional Manager of Jamshedpur Office requested the Branch Manager, Union Bank of India, Upper Bazaar Branch, Ranchi vide letter dated 22.11.2012 to invoke the Bank Guarantees of Rs.76,00,000/- (Rs.46,00,000/- + Rs.30,00,000/-). The Branch Manager, Union Bank of India, Upper Bazaar Branch, Ranchi sent the said amount of Rs.76,00,000/- by way of Demand Draft upon revocation of both the Bank Guarantees. The petitioner-applicant made a representation before the Senior Regional Manger raising objection with regard to revocation of both the Bank Guarantees. The Senior Regional Manager asked the petitioner-applicant to pay to the company towards loss due to damages and non-saleable stocks to the tune of Rs.1,25,61,639/-. It was also pointed out that the recovery of amount of Rs.76,00,000/- by invoking the Bank Guarantees and uncertified pending bills of amount of Rs.26,95,307/- had been adjusted against such damages and thus, the petitioner-applicant was asked to pay the balance amount of Rs.22,66,330/-. The petitioner-applicant preferred a writ petition being W.P.(C) No.4825 of 2018 challenging the aforesaid demand which is still pending. Thereafter, the petitioner-applicant prepared statement of claim showing the number of work conducted by it and the payments made thereto and according to him, the petitioner-applicant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,51,08,327.25. The Respondent No.2 sought for a confirmation from the petitioner-applicant as to whether he is ready and willing to waive the applicability of sub-section 5 of Section 12 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 and as to whether the petitioner-applicant is ready to give its consent for appointment of an employee of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited as a sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. The petitioner-applicant proposed for appointment of one of the retired Hon’ble Judge of the High Court as an Arbitrator for adjudication of the dispute but the respondents did not respond to the said notice of the petitioner and hence this arbitration application. 3. The issue of limitation has been taken as a ground for opposition of this Arbitration Application on behalf of the respondents by filing counter affidavit. 4. Mr. 3. The issue of limitation has been taken as a ground for opposition of this Arbitration Application on behalf of the respondents by filing counter affidavit. 4. Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-applicant, rebutting the same, has referred one document issued by the respondents as under Annexure-9 dated 20.03.2019, whereby and whereunder the respondent (the officer holding the rank of Deputy General Manager-cum-duly constituted attorney) has made correspondence with the applicant seeking consent of the applicant for appointment of Arbitrator who will be an employee of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited to adjudicate the difference and dispute between the parties. The petitioner-applicant responded to the said letter, as would appear from letter dated 02.07.2019 (Annexure-10), addressed to the concerned officer, stating therein that instead of appointing an officer of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, a former Judge of the High Court may be appointed to act as a sole Arbitrator. Mr. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner-applicant, submits that since option for appointment of Arbitrator was given by the respondents themselves on 20.03.2019 (Annexure-9), hence, there is no question of applicability of limitation, the ground as has been taken by the respondents. According to him, when the respondent Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited itself has offered for appointment of Arbitrator vide letter dated 20.03.2019, therefore, they themselves have considered the fact about resolution of the dispute by appointment of Arbitrator, however, the only dispute is that who will be the Arbitrator, whether an officer of the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited or the former Judge of the High Court. Therefore, submission has been made that now he is ready to accept the offer made on behalf of respondent for appointment of Arbitrator who will be an officer of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited. 5. Mr. Rahul Lamba, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, has submitted that he is having no opposition of the same, however, he has sought for liberty to raise the legal issues before the Arbitrator. 6. This Court, after considering the aforesaid facts, is of the view that since the parties have consented for appointment of Arbitrator to be an officer of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, there is no need for deliberating upon the issue of limitation here in the instant proceeding. 7. 6. This Court, after considering the aforesaid facts, is of the view that since the parties have consented for appointment of Arbitrator to be an officer of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, there is no need for deliberating upon the issue of limitation here in the instant proceeding. 7. Accordingly, this Arbitration Application is being disposed of by appointing the General Manager (Operations and Distribution), CGMO, East Zone, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Kolkata to act as a sole Arbitrator for resolution of the dispute. 8. Accordingly, the instant application stands disposed of. 9. Needless to say that the parties will be at liberty to raise all the legal issues for its consideration by the Arbitrator, in accordance with law. 10. It is expected that the Arbitrator will conclude the proceeding within the timeframe as provided under the Act. 11. Let this order be communicated forthwith to the Arbitrator for doing the needful, as directed. 12. Both the parties shall co-operate in the hearing before the learned arbitrator and they shall not ask for any unnecessary adjournment.