JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner, who has the benefit of the Purchase Orders dtd. 28/3/2015 [Annexures-A and A1] issued by the respondent for supply of "Solar Study line/Lantern", has filed this petition for the appointment of a former Judge of this Court as the sole arbitrator. There is no dispute that the petitioner and the respondent have agreed for resolution of inter se disputes by arbitration. It is seen from the Purchase Orders that the petitioner and the respondent have referred to the Arbitration Act, 1940, but the learned counsels for the parties are categorical that it must be construed as a reference to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 2. Mr. Zulfikir Kumar Shafi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has been paid 50% of the value of the Work Orders and the remaining is not paid solely on the ground that the respondent is awaiting receipt of the amount from the beneficiary viz., the Department of Employment and Training [DET], Government of Karnataka. In fact, the learned counsel submits that the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court in W.P.No.30802/2019 [GM-RES] for directions to the respondent to consider the petitioner's request for payment of the amount due, and this writ petition is disposed of on 5/8/2019 directing the respondent to consider the representations filed in the years between 2017-19 within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 3. Mr. Zulfikir Kumar Shafi further submits that the petitioner was constrained to commence contempt proceedings in C.C.C.No.303/2020, which is disposed of on 21/3/2022 observing that the representations have been considered in terms of the Communication dtd. 25/11/2019. The learned counsel, relying upon these circumstances, submits that the necessary ingredients are established especially with the exchange of the legal notices on 4/8/2022, 9/8/2022 and 18/8/2022, but there is failure of consensus. Mr. Karthik C., the learned counsel for the respondent, submits that the Purchase Orders are issued to the petitioner in the month of March 2015, but the arbitration notice is issued only in the year 2022 and therefore, the claim is ex facie time barred. 4. In the circumstances relied upon by the petitioner, this Court cannot opine that the claim is ex-facie time barred, and that this is a question which will have to be examined in the arbitral proceedings. 4. In the circumstances relied upon by the petitioner, this Court cannot opine that the claim is ex-facie time barred, and that this is a question which will have to be examined in the arbitral proceedings. In the light of the afore, and upon hearing the learned counsels for the parties on who could enter reference of the dispute, Hon'ble Sri. Justice Ashok B Hinchigeri must be appointed as the sole arbitrator to enter reference of the dispute. Hence, the following: ORDER [a] The petition is allowed. [b] Hon'ble Sri. Justice Ashok B Hinchigeri, a former Judge of the High Court of Karnataka, is appointed as the sole Arbitrator to enter reference of the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent and conduct the proceeding at the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre (Domestic and International), Bengaluru according to the Rules governing the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre (Domestic and International), Bengaluru. [c] The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre (Domestic and International), Bengaluru, and Hon'ble Sri. Justice Ashok B Hinchigeri, a former Judge of the High Court of Karnataka, Address: Apartment No.1431, Embassy Habitat, No.59, Palace Road, Vasanthnagar, Bengaluru - 560 052 [E- mail: ashokbhinchigeri@gmail.com] as required under the Appointment of Arbitrators by the Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court Scheme, 1996.