Order : (REKHA BORANA, J.) 1. The present application under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1996’) has been filed for appointment of an independent and impartial sole arbitrator for resolution of the disputes as have arisen between the parties qua the agreement dated 01.03.2021 executed for the purposes of Loan Against Property (LAP). 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that notice dated 18.07.2022 was served on the respondents calling upon them to deposit the amount qua the due installments but the same was not responded to and hence, notice dated 01.04.2023 (Annx.6) was served in terms of Article 14 (arbitration clause) of the agreement in question. However, when the same was also not responded to, the dispute was referred to an arbitrator appointed by the applicant Finance Company in terms of Article 14 of the agreement. 3. The arbitrator so appointed proceeded with the Arbitration proceedings and ultimately even award dated 27.07.2023 was passed by him. 4. However, the execution proceedings initiated by the applicant Finance Company qua some identical awards were dismissed on the count that the award in question was void and unexecutable as the unilateral appointment of arbitrator by the Company was de-hors Section 12 (5) of the Act of 1996. The Executing Court held so, while relying upon the ratio as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Perkins Eastman Architects DPS & Ors. Vs. HSCC (India) Ltd. (2020) 20 SCC 760 . One of such order dated 29.05.2024 passed in Execution petition No.02/2024 (CIS No.02/2024) by the Senior Civil Judge, Bhinmal, Jalore has been placed on record today. 5. In view of the orders passed in identical execution proceedings, the applicant Finance Company took a conscious decision not to pursue award dated 27.07.2023 and to adopt the procedure for appointment of an independent arbitrator afresh. Hence, the present application under Section 11 (6) of the Act of1996 has been filed. 6. Counsel for the applicant, on instructions, undertakes that the applicant Company would not pursue Award dated27.07.2023. 7. Arguing on merit of the present application, counsel submits that the respondents were under an obligation to pay the monthly installments qua the loan in question but they failed to do so despite demand notice dated 18.07.2022 been served on them. 6. Counsel for the applicant, on instructions, undertakes that the applicant Company would not pursue Award dated27.07.2023. 7. Arguing on merit of the present application, counsel submits that the respondents were under an obligation to pay the monthly installments qua the loan in question but they failed to do so despite demand notice dated 18.07.2022 been served on them. Notice dated 01.04.2023 invoking the arbitration clause i.e. Article 14 of the agreement was then served on the respondents. No response been received, the present application for appointment of an impartial and independent sole arbitrator has been filed. 8. Counsel for the respondents is not in a position to refute the above factual position regarding the service of notice dated 01.04.2023. The execution of the agreement dated 01.03.2021 is also not disputed and the conditions therein are also not disputed. 9. In view of the above facts, it is clear that a dispute has arisen between the parties and notice dated 01.04.2023 invoking the arbitration clause has not been responded to. The dispute as arisen between the parties therefore deserves to be referred to a sole arbitrator for resolution in terms of Article 14 of the agreement in question which reads as under:- “ ARTICLE – 14: ARBITRATION All matters, question, disputes, differences and/or claims arising out of and/or concerning and/or in connection and/or in consequences of breaches, termination or invalidity thereof or relating to this agreement whether or not obligations of the Lander, the Borrower, Guarantor(s) or any other person or entity under the Agreement subsisting at the time of such dispute and whether or not the Agreement has been terminated or purported to be terminated or completed, shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996 (as amended from time to time), and shall be referred to the Sole Arbitrator as nominated by the Lander, for arbitration. The award given by the Sole Arbitrator shall be final & binding on the Borrower and Guarantor(s). The venue of the arbitration shall be only at place mentioned in the SCHEDULE & Arbitration Proceeding shall be conducted in English Language.(chose the dialects)” 10. So far as the award dated 27.07.2023 is concerned, it is needless to observe that the same is even otherwise void in view of the ratio laid down in Perkins case (supra) and hence, is of no consequence. 11. So far as the award dated 27.07.2023 is concerned, it is needless to observe that the same is even otherwise void in view of the ratio laid down in Perkins case (supra) and hence, is of no consequence. 11. So far as the limitation is concerned, the agreement in question is of 01.03.2021 and the first demand notice was served on 18.07.2022. The notice invoking arbitration clause was served on 01.04.2023 which clearly was within limitation. The present application been filed on 18.07.2024 is also clearly within limitation. 12. In view of the above facts and observations, an independent and impartial sole arbitrator needs to be appointed by this Court for resolution of the disputes as have arisen between the parties. 13. Both the counsels unanimously submit that Advocate Mr. Dinesh Kumar Khandelwal be appointed as an arbitrator to resolve the disputes in question. 14. In view of the submission made, the application under Section 11(6) of the Act of 1996 is allowed . Advocate Mr. Dinesh Kumar Khandelwal (Enrollment No. R/297/1994) r/o Opp. BSNL Bhawan, Karda Road, Bhinmal District Jalore (Mobile No.9414425321) is appointed as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes as raised vide notice dated 01.04.2023 (Anx.6). 15. The arbitration fee and the costs shall be in accordance with the Fourth Schedule to the Act of 1996. The above appointment shall be subject to the necessary disclosure being made by the arbitrator in terms of Section 12 of the Act of 1996. 16. The intimation of the appointment as aforesaid be given by the Registry to Mr. Dinesh Kumar Khandelwal. The parties would also be at liberty to intimate Mr. Dinesh Kumar Khandelwal and to call upon appropriate date for necessary directions.