INDRAJIT MAHANTY,J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.
(2.) The applicant has moved an application seeking appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter to be referred as the 'Act of 1996'), claiming therein that certain disputes have arisen pursuant to an order placed by respondent vide Annexure-1 dated 13.07.1995.
(3.) It is submitted on behalf of the applicant that pursuant to the said order, the petitioner-applicant paid a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- by cheque as 25% advance for supply of Solitaire Center Less Grinding Machine and balance payment of Rs.7,35,000/- was made on 21.03.1996 under Annexure-6. The respondents have acknowledged the receipt of balance amount of Rs. 7,35,000/-. In this manner, it is submitted on behalf of the applicant that although the entire consideration for purchase of Solitaire Center Less Grinding Machine Model-OMV-8' was placed on the respondent and the entire consideration was paid, the respondent did not supply the machine nor have refunded the money to the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant also placed reliance on Clause VII of Annexure-6 (invoice) given by the respondent which contains the following Arbitration Clause:- 'VII. ARBITRATION: Any dispute whatsoever touching or arising out of the contract including any dispute arising out of resale, shall unless amicably settled be referred to arbitration in Jaipur by two persons residing in Jaipur one to be appointed by each party and the two arbitrators shall nominate or umpire residing at Jaipur before proceeding with the arbitration and the arbitration shall be in accordance with the law for the time being governing arbitrations in India. The arbitrators or umpire shall be entitled from time to time extend the time for giving the award with the written consent of the parties. Civil court of Competent Jurisdiction in Jaipur alone shall have jurisdiction.' ;