R.C.JAIN, J. - (1.)This is a petition under Section 11(5) and (10) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the 'Act') seeking appointment of an arbitrator in terms of arbitration agreement dated 11.10.2003 and for referring the disputes between the parties to the arbitrator, so appointed for adjudication.
(2.)The petition has been made with the averments and allegations that on 11.10.2003 the respondents entered into a Share Purchase Agreement with the petitioner and to hand over the management of the company to them on the terms and conditions set out in the Term Sheet of the even date. It is alleged that pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Term Sheet, the petitioner invested a sum of approximately Rs.403.00 lacs in the company from 28.10.2003 till 22.5.2004 and took over the possession of the factory on 2.11.2003 and started running the same. It is further alleged that in spite of infusing the above sum of money, respondents no.1 and 2 failed and neglected to act in terms of the agreement and to cooperate in running the unit and also deviated from the terms of the agreement in several respects fully detailed in the petition. The petitioner, therefore, filed a petition (OMP 256/2004) under Section 9 of the Act) against the respondents in this Court praying for certain interim measures. It is also averred that because of mis-management of the affairs and oppression to the shareholders and various decisions taken by respondents no.1 and 2 in breach and violation of the statutory requirements, the petitioner was compelled to file a petition under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956. Clause 10 of the terms of the Term Sheet dated 11.10.2003 contains an arbitration agreement to the following effect: Clause-10:
¢ ¢â ¬ …â In case of dispute or difference by and between the parties concerning or relating to or arising out of completion of transaction contemplated herein or with regard to interpretation of this Term Sheet or any of the clauses thereof, the same shall be referred to Arbitration as per provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. ¢ ¢â ¬

(3.)Vide a communication dated 4.8.2004 the petitioner invoked the arbitration and appointed Shri K.Ramamoorthy (a retired Judge of this Court) to arbitrate and adjudicate the disputes between the parties. Vide a letter dated 23.8.2004 respondent no.1 informed the petitioners that he did not agree to the appointment of Shri K.Ramamoorthy as an arbitrator, as suggested by the petitioner. It is also averred that on 16.8.2004 Shri Jitender Aggarwal was served with a notice of an advocate purportedly dated 5.8.2004 along with a copy of the order dated 24.7.2004 which revealed that the respondents have wrongfully, illegally and with ulterior motive caused a civil suit to be filed and obtained ex parte orders that ¢ ¢â ¬ …â no obstruction should be caused in their running of the factory ¢ ¢â ¬ . The said suit is stated to be not maintainable and is rather an attempt on the part of the respondents creating obstruction and interference in the petitioner's managing the affairs of the factory.