JUDGMENT (Prayer: Arbitration Original Petition (Commercial Division) filed under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to appoint an Arbitrator to adjudicate on the dispute inter se the petitioner and the respondent herein.) 1. This petition has been filed under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, seeking for appointment of an Arbitrator by this Court. 2. The petitioner is a transport contractor and is entered into a contract dated 01.04.2019 for transportation of the employees of the respondent. According to the petitioner, the respondent has illegally terminated the services of the petitioner under its termination notice dated 15.04.2020. According to the petitioner, service charges payable by the respondent under the aforesaid agreement have not been paid. In such circumstances, the petitioner has made a claim against the respondent for the alleged unpaid bills sent by the petitioner to the respondent. The agreement for transportation of the employees dated 01.04.2019 entered into between the petitioner and the respondent contains an arbitration agreement which is extracted hereunder: "30. Each party shall in good faith fulfill and abide by the terms and conditions this contract based on confidence placed by such party on the other and relied upon by such party. Any dispute, controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this contract or the breach, termination, validity thereof shall first be settled amicably in the parties between the parties. In the event the dispute cannot be settled amicably, in the parties, the same shall be referred to a sole arbitrator to be solely appointed by the Managing Director of the COMPANY for arbitration, whose decision shall be binding and final, on the parties to this contract and the dispute shall not be allowed to be litigated upon in a Court of law. The award shall include allocation of the cost of arbitration proceedings. The venue of Arbitration proceedings shall be at Chennai. The arbitration proceedings shall be conducting under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as amended." 3. The petitioner prior to filing of this petition, had invoked arbitration in accordance with the said arbitration agreement through his letter dated 22.03.2021. In the said letter, the petitioner had proposed three names for the respondent to choose from, who shall act as a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties arising out of the transportation agreement dated 01.04.2019. In the said letter, the petitioner had proposed three names for the respondent to choose from, who shall act as a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties arising out of the transportation agreement dated 01.04.2019. The respondent has also duly acknowledged the receipt of the letter dated 22.03.2022, as seen from the proof of service filed by the petitioner which forms part of the typed set of papers. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent denying its liability to the petitioner. According to them, the petitioner has himself admitted that from March 2020 onwards, the vehicles belonging to the petitioner were not utilised by the respondent and therefore, the respondent is not liable to pay any service charges to the petitioner. Therefore, according to the respondent, this Court is not empowered to appoint an Arbitrator under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act as there is no dispute between the parties. 5. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to various correspondence made by the petitioner to the respondent calling upon the respondent to pay the alleged dues to the petitioner. The letters sent by the petitioner includes demand letters sent by the petitioner to the respondent are dated 24.07.2020 & 28.01.2022. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent would reiterate the contents of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent in her submissions and would submit that since there is no dispute between the parties as no dues are payable by the respondent to the petitioner, the question of appointing an arbitrator under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act will not arise. 7. While deciding whether the arbitrator will have to be appointed by this Court under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, this court will have to see whether there is a valid arbitration agreement between the parties or not. 8. Admittedly, there is a valid arbitration agreement between the parties, as seen from the agreement for transportation of employees of the respondent dated 01.04.2019 entered into between the petitioner and the respondent. The arbitration clause has also been extracted supra. The respondent has also not disputed the existence of such an arbitration agreement. 9. 8. Admittedly, there is a valid arbitration agreement between the parties, as seen from the agreement for transportation of employees of the respondent dated 01.04.2019 entered into between the petitioner and the respondent. The arbitration clause has also been extracted supra. The respondent has also not disputed the existence of such an arbitration agreement. 9. The only contention raised by the respondent is that there is no amount due and payable by the respondent to the petitioner under the agreement dated 01.04.2019 as vehicles of the petitioner were not utilised by the respondent from March 2020 onwards. The agreement dated 01.04.2019 is valid for a period of two years and it expires only on 31.03.2021. The respondent claims that since they have not utilised the vehicles of the petitioner from March 2020 onwards, they are not liable to pay service charges to the petitioner. Whereas the petitioner contends that the respondent is liable to pay service charges even for the lockdown period and even if the vehicles of the petitioner were not utilised by the respondent. 10. As seen from the aforesaid submissions made by the respective parties, admittedly there is a dispute between the parties. One party contends that the money is due and payable by the respondent under the agreement dated 01.04.2019, whereas the other denies the same. 11. This Court while exercising its powers under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 cannot decide the dispute on merits. It is for the arbitral tribunal to decide the same on merits and in accordance with law. When there is a valid arbitration agreement between the parties and the said agreement has not been disputed by the respondent in its counter as well as in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent, necessarily this Court will have to appoint an Arbitrator in accordance with the arbitration agreement under section 11 of the Arbitration and conciliation Act. 12. For the foregoing reasons, this Arbitration Original Petition is allowed as prayed for by issuing following directions: (a) This Court appoints Mr.Aditya Reddy, Advocate having communication address as No.21/11, P.S.Sivasamy Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004 (Mob.No.9884811101), as a sole Arbitrator to decide the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent arising out of the agreement for transportation of employees of the respondent dated 01.04.2019. (b) The Arbitrator shall be paid his remuneration / fees in accordance with the 4th schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. (c) Both the parties shall equally share the arbitrator''s fees. (d) The Arbitrator shall conduct the arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and shall complete the arbitration within the specified time as prescribed under the said Act.