The main legal point established is that the fulfillment of agreed procedures, such as conciliation as a condition precedent, is necessary before invoking the arbitration clause. The Court emphasized the limited scope of interference under Sec. 11 and the need to fulfill the conditions for appointing an arbitrator.

JUDGMENT :

Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.

1. Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

2. The Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Sec. 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute that has arisen between the petitioner and respondents as per clause 11 of the Work Order dtd. 15/1/2014 (Annexure-'A').

3. The facts of the case in brevity are that the 1st respondent approached the petitioner and informed that it is interested in entrusting design and construction of residential building work at No. 25, 15th Main Road, 10th Cross, RMV Extension, Bangalore, on a plot. Accordingly 1st respondent issued Work Order dtd. 15/1/2014 in favour of the petitioner. It is alleged that the respondents also entrusted to the petitioner the work of carrying out residential building construction work at their Plot No. 32-33, Road No. 11, Next to M.P. Rajagopal House, Film Nagar, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad and the petitioner agreed for the same.

4. It is submitted that the petitioner had completed construction works of both the residential buildings during the period 2014 to 2018. The possession of the buildings situated at Bangalore and Hyderabad were handed over to respondents and the same has been accepted by the respondents without any demur. The respondents are in complete occupation and enjoyment of the same. However, they have not paid the balance amount for construction work done by the petitioner. The respondents have made part payment and have paid only Rs.3,53,57,520.00. The respondents are required to pay a sum of Rs.18,44,30,380.00 along with interest as balance amount which is due to the petitioner. The petitioner has repeatedly requested the respondents to make the payment of the balance amount, however, the respondents did not bother to reply to the letters of the petitioner or make the payment of the balance amount with interest. The petitioner has sent several letters to the respondents. The petitioner has invoked clause 11 of the Work Order by sending a notice dtd. 14/7/2020 to respondents and nominated Sri. S.S.Nagarale, retired District Judge as Sole Arbitrator. The said notice has been served on respondent No. 1 on 27/7/2020. However, he has not sent any reply. The petitioner has received the reply only from respondent Nos.2 to 9 and they have baldly denied the lawful claim made by the petitioner. The respondent Nos.2 to 9 are the Directors / officials of respondent No. 1. The petitioner is therefore left with no other option but to file the instant petition under Sec. 11(6) for appointment of Arbitrator. The petitioner has also filed Commercial A.A. No. 9/2021 before the City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, under Sec. 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decisions in MTNL v. Canara Bank, (2020) 12 SCC 767 and Punjab State v. Dina Nath, (2007) 5 SCC 28, to submit and establish that there is a valid arbitration agreement in existence between the petitioner and the Respondents.

6. Reliance is also placed upon decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Masroor Shaikh v. Bharat Bhushan Gupta, (2022) 4 SCC 156 and Sanjiv Prakash v. Seema Kukreja, (2021) 9 SCC 732 to submit that this Court has a limited scope of interference at this referral stage under Sec. 11 of the Act of 1996 for appointment of arbitrator, particularly after the introduction of Sec. 6A post the 2015 Amendment to the Act of 1996. Hence, the power of a court under Sec. 11 should be limited to viewing whether an arbitration agreement exists between the parties and any elaborate review of facts and law which appears to be arguable would be non-determinable at the stage of reference.

7. The respondents have remained unrepresented in view of the office objection raised to seek clarification as to how Respondents No. 2 to 9 have been made parties in this petition, when those are not parties in t