ORDER : Ashok S.Kinagi, J. 1. This Civil Miscellaneous petition is filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, "the Act") for adjudication of the disputes between the parties to the petition in terms of Clause (15.2) of the Retail Services Agreement dated 13.06.2024 vide Annexure “A”, as per the provisions of the Act. 2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this petition are as follows: 3. The petitioner and M/s.Lulu International Shopping Mall Limited entered into a Leave and License Agreement dated 28.03.2024 regarding the retail space admeasuring 6,124 square feet in carpet area and 10,166 square feet in chargeable area, located at Unit No.SF-03, 2 nd floor, Lulu Mall, Gopalpur, Bengaluru-560023. In terms of the Retail Service Agreement entered into between the parties, the respondent was deemed to have commenced its business operations in retail space. 4. The respondent, in breach of its obligation under the Agreement, failed to make payments due and payable thereunder to the petitioner despite several reminders from the petitioner. The petitioner issued a legal notice on 02.12.2024 to the respondent highlighting various breaches of the Agreement dated 13.06.2024 by the respondent. 5. The respondent issued a reply to the legal notice on 20.12.2024. The petitioner responded to the reply notice on 10.01.2025. It was learnt by the petitioner that the respondent had removed all its goods/inventory/products that were present in the retail space provided by the petitioner. 6. The petitioner invoked the Arbitration Clause (15.2) by issuing a notice dated 07.02.2025 by nominating a sole Arbitrator and referring the dispute between them to the arbitration. 7. The respondent replied to the arbitration notice wherein he has refused to accept the name of the Arbitrator proposed by the petitioner. Hence, this petition. 8. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. 9. The learned counsel for the respondent submits no objection to nominate any retired High Court Judge as an Arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the parties to the petition. 10. Perused the records and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. 11. 9. The learned counsel for the respondent submits no objection to nominate any retired High Court Judge as an Arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the parties to the petition. 10. Perused the records and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. 11. The point that arises for consideration in this petition is : "Whether the petitioner has made up a ground to refer the matter to the arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the parties to the petition in terms of Clauses (15.2) of the Retail Services Agreement dated 13.06.2024 as per the provisions of the Arbitration and Cancellation Act." 12. There is no dispute regarding the execution of the Retail Services Agreement between the parties on 13.06.2024, and the disputes arose between the parties regarding the payment of certain amounts due and payable to the petitioner. The petitioner requested the respondent to pay the amounts; however, despite several requests made by the petitioner, the respondent did not pay the said amount. The petitioner issued a legal notice on 02.12.2024 highlighting the various breaches of the terms of the agreement and calling upon the respondent to make the payment. The respondent replied to the legal notice, denying the allegations made therein. The petitioner invoked the arbitration Clauses (15.2.1) and (15.2.2), by issuing a notice dated 07.02.2025 under Section 21 of the Act. Clauses 15.2.1 and 15.2.2 of the Agreement dated 13.06.2024 read as follows: “ 15.2. Arbitration: 15.2.1 Any dispute or claim involving the parties and arising out of or, in connection with, or relating to this Agreement or the breach, termination or invalidity hereof (“Dispute”), which cannot be finally resolved by such parties within 30(thirty) working days of the arising of a Dispute, or such extended period as such Parties involved in the Dispute may agree, by amicable negotiation and conciliation will be referred at the request in writing of the disputing Party (“Dispute Notice”) to binding arbitration by a sole arbitrator appointed jointly by the Parties (“Arbitrator”) in accordance with the (Indian) Arbitration and conciliation Act, 1996, for the time being in force. In case of failure to appoint a sole arbitrator by mutual consent within a period of 15 (fifteen) days from the date of the Dispute Notice, then the arbitral tribunal shall consist of 3 (three) arbitrators, with each party entitled to appoint 1(one) arbitrator each and the third arbitrator shall be appointed by mutual agreement by the 2 (two) arbitrators so appointed. 15.2.2 All arbitration proceedings will be conduced in the English language and the seat venue of arbitration may be at Bangalore or any seat which is mutually agreed between the parties. Judgment upon any arbitral award rendered hereunder may be entered in any Court having jurisdiction, or application may be made to such Court for a judicial acceptance of the award and an order of enforcement, as the case may be. The governing law for arbitration shall be Indian laws. ” 13. From the perusal of the aforesaid Clause in the Retail Services Agreement, it is clear that if any dispute arises out of or in connection with or relating to the Agreement, the dispute has to be resolved by amicable negotiation. If amicable negotiation has failed, the dispute was to be referred to an Arbitral Tribunal. 14. Admittedly, as there existed an arbitration clause in the Retail Services Agreement and the arbitration dispute arose between the petitioner and the respondent, the same has to be resolved through an arbitrator. 15. The learned counsel for the respondent submits no objection to allow the petition and nominate any retired High Court Judge as an arbitrator to resolve the dispute between parties to the petition. Hence, the petitioner made out a ground to refer the matter to the sole Arbitrator. 16. In view of the above discussion, I answer the point for consideration in the affirmative and accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER (i) The Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed (ii) Hon’ble Sri. Justice Jayanth Patel, retired Judge of the High Court of Karnataka, is nominated as the sole Arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the parties to the petition, as per the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and the Rules. (iii) The Office is directed to communicate this order to the learned Arbitrator and also to the Arbitration and Conciliation Center, Bengaluru. (iv) The Office is directed to return the original documents, if any, to the petitioner after retaining a photocopy of the same. (iii) The Office is directed to communicate this order to the learned Arbitrator and also to the Arbitration and Conciliation Center, Bengaluru. (iv) The Office is directed to return the original documents, if any, to the petitioner after retaining a photocopy of the same. (v) In view of the disposal of the petition, pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.