R. Devdas ORDER
R. Devdas, J.
1. This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1996', for short) seeking appointment of a sole Arbitrator in terms of the arbitration clause contained in the LLP Agreement dated 21.03.2017.
2. Having regard to the prayer made in the petition seeking appointment of Hon'ble Mr.Justice M.S.Sanklecha (Retired Judge, Bombay High Court) as the sole Arbitrator to resolve the disputes and differences that have arisen between the petitioner and the respondent, learned Senior Counsel Sri.C.K.Nandakumar, appearing for the respondent submitted that except Hon'ble Mr.Justice M.S.Sanklecha, any other Former Judge of any High Court may be appointed as a sole Arbitrator and not Hon'ble Mr.Justice M.S.Sanklecha. The learned Senior Counsel has very fairly submitted that the respondent is not making any allegation of bias against the learned Judge, but the respondent insists on appointment of any other person as sole Arbitrator having regard to the express provisions contained in sub-section (3) of Section 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 read with Entry 24 of the Fifth Schedule of the Act, 1996.
3. The undisputed facts which are germane are that the petitioner was an employee of Pricewaterhouse Coopers Pvt. Limited, a registered Company (herein after referred to as 'Company') and was also an equity partner of Pricewaterhouse Cooper Services LLP, which is the respondent herein. It is however contended by the petitioner that he was not given a copy of the LLP Agreement and he did not have knowledge of the clauses contained therein. After his retirement and upon disputes arising between the petitioner and the respondent, the petitioner issued two separate arbitration notices, calling for appointment of Arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the parties. Thereafter, the petitioner filed two separate petitions before the Bombay High Court invoking Section 11 of the Act, 1996, and sought appointment of Arbitrators. When the matters were heard by the Bombay High Court, objections were raised at the hands of the respondent herein stating that in terms of the LLP Agreement the seat of arbitration is Bengaluru and therefore, a petition could not have been filed before the Bombay High Court. The petitioner sought to withdraw the petition insofar as the LLP Agreement is concerned while seeking liberty to file appropriate application/petition before the competent court. Accordingly, the Bombay High Court, by order dated 06.02.2024 not only disposed of the application as regards the LLP Agreement as withdrawn, but also proceeded to appoint Honb'le Mr.Justice M.S.Sanklecha, as the sole Arbitrator to decide the disputes between the petitioner and the Company. Subsequently, this Civil Miscellaneous Petition was filed by the petitioner seeking appointment of Hon'ble Mr.Justice M.S.Sanklecha, as the sole Arbitrator.
4. Learned Senior Counsel Sri.C.K.Nandakumar, while drawing the attention of this Court to paragraph No.16 of the petition submits that the petitioner does not dispute the fact that in the reply to the arbitration notice, the respondent proposed the names of two Former Judges of this Court, having regard to the fact that the seat of arbitration is Bengaluru. It is also pointed out that the petitioner has proposed the names of two Former Judges of the Bombay High Court and not Hon'ble Mr.Justice M.S.Sanklecha. Moreover, it is vehemently contended that in terms of Entry 24 of the Fifth Schedule, since Hon'ble Mr.Justice M.S.Sanklecha is already serving as an Arbitrator in a related issue, he is barred from being appointed........