JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner is seeking for appointment of an Arbitrator under this petition which is filed under section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). 2. The sum and substance or grievance of petitioner as could be gathered from the averments made in petition is to the effect that respondent and petitioner had exchanged into several documents with regard to supply of various products including galvanized iron duct, stainless steel ducting material etc which culminated in purchase agreement being entered into between them. It is also stated that said purchase agreement also contained terms regarding duration of the agreement, date of delivery, terms of payment etc. It is further stated that petitioner had made advance payments against various material supplied by the respondent and respondent had failed to deliver the goods requisitioned by the petitioner and respondent had committed material breach of the purchase agreement and it is not only liable to repay the amount paid by the petitioner by way of advance but also the interest and penalty / for default committed by it. Hence, quantifying the said amount at Rs. 28,93,777/-, petitioner got issued a legal notice and called upon the respondent to pay the said amount. Contending respondent has neither replied to said notice nor has complied with the demand made by the petitioner under the said notice, petitioner has sought for appointment of an Arbitrator. 3. On service of notice, respondent has appeared, filed its reply, admitting execution of the agreement. It is contended that unstamped agreement was signed and there is no arbitration clause in the said agreement for the dispute being resolved by arbitration. Hence, it is contended that petitioner cannot invoke section 11(6) of the Act and seek for reference of dispute to be resolved in respect of the purchase orders 6924-1 and 6924-2. The respondent admits purchase agreement dated 13.12.2017 was entered into but would contend termination of the contract was contrary to clause 7(2) of the agreement. Hence, respondent has sought for dismissal of the petition. 4. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and after bestowing my careful and anxious consideration to the rival contentions raised at the Bar, it would emerge from the records that in all there were two purchase agreements entered into between the parties and they relate to different work orders. 4. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and after bestowing my careful and anxious consideration to the rival contentions raised at the Bar, it would emerge from the records that in all there were two purchase agreements entered into between the parties and they relate to different work orders. For the purpose of convenience, the same is tabulated herein below : - Sr. No. Work Order No. Purchase Agreement Date Annexure 1. 6919 Nil A 2. 6920 Nil A 3. 6922*1 6922*2 Nil A 4. 6924*1 6924*2 13.12.2017 A 5. 6923*1 6923*2 29.01.2018 A 5. Perusal of five aforesaid invoices would clearly disclose that in respect of invoices referred to at Serial No. 1 to 3, there is no arbitration clause. On the other hand, it is agreed between the parties that any dispute arising under the said agreement, the Court of Ahmedabad would only have jurisdiction. However, in respect of agreements referred to at Serial No. 4 and 5 hereinabove, which relates to purchase orders 6924-1, 6924-2, 6923-1, 6923-2, both the parties have agreed that controversy or dispute arising out of or relating to the said agreements would be settled by arbitration. The said arbitration clause found at Clause IX (2) reads as under :- "IX. Governing Law and Arbitration : (2) Any dispute, controversy or claims arising out of or relating to this Agreement or the breach, termination or invalidity thereof, shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996." 6. Above said clause clearly disclose arbitration agreement being in force between the parties and both parties having agreed to resolve their disputes by arbitration and same requires to be resolved as per procedure agreed to between the parties only insofar as the two agreements referred to at Serial No. 4 and 5 hereinabove. Insofar as the claim of the petitioner for referring the dispute relating to work orders at Serial No. 1 to 3 hereinabove, deserves to be rejected, inasmuch as, parties not being ad idem on the issue of referring the dispute to the arbitration. 7. Hence, I proceed to pass following : ORDER (i) Arbitration Petition is Allowed in Part. (ii) The dispute relating to arbitration agreement dated 13.12.2017 and 29.01.2018 insofar as they relating to purchase orders bearing No. 6924-1, 6924- 2, 6923-1 and 6923-2 referred to at Serial Nos. 7. Hence, I proceed to pass following : ORDER (i) Arbitration Petition is Allowed in Part. (ii) The dispute relating to arbitration agreement dated 13.12.2017 and 29.01.2018 insofar as they relating to purchase orders bearing No. 6924-1, 6924- 2, 6923-1 and 6923-2 referred to at Serial Nos. 1 to 3 in tabular column extracted at paragraph No. 4 are only referred to arbitration for being resolved by a sole Arbitrator. (iii) Shri T.K. Gurnani, Retired Principal District Judge, residing at : 203/1, Silver Alaknanda Bungalows, Pleasure Club, Dental College Road, Bopal, Manipur, Ahmedabad is hereby appointed as 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 governed by said Rules. (iv) Registry is directed to communicate this order to the sole arbitrator forthwith by speed post. (v) No order as to costs.