The main legal point established in the judgment is that issues of limitation and notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, fall within the realm of admissibility issues and are to be decided by the arbitral tribunal, and the limited scope of inquiry under Section 11 of the Act, 1996, does not extend to determining the admissibility of the claims.

JUDGMENT

1. This is an application under Section 11(5) read with Section 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('the Act, 1996') to appoint an Arbitrator, either nominated by the applicants or any other suitable person, as the sole Arbitrator to resolve all the disputes between the applicants and respondent arising out of the Conveyance Deed dated 31st December, 2012.

2. Shorn of superfluities, the background facts can be stated as under:

(a) Mr. Rajnikant Dhirajlal Mehta, the predecessor in title of applicant no.1 and applicant nos.2 and 3 were the owners of the property situated at Oghadbhai Chawl, bearing Survey No.76 Hissa No.6 City Survey No.4296 to 4316 of village Kirol, Ghatkopar (East), ('the subject property'). On 31st December, 2012, the said Rajnikant and applicant nos.2 and 3 executed a Deed of Conveyance in favour of the respondent. The Deed of Conveyance, inter alia, contained respondent's obligation to construct a new building on the suit premises and hand over the premises admeasuring 1275 sq. ft. carpet area, along with two car parking spaces (one stilt and one open) within a period of 42 months. In the event of default, the respondent had agreed to pay interest and liquidated damages at the end of every month after the expiry of the aforesaid period of 42 months. The said term was subsequently modified to provide that the new constructed premises would be delivered to the applicants within 34 months. The Conveyance Deed provided for a mechanism for resolution of dispute between the parties through arbitration to be presided over by Mr. Kirti K. Shah, an Architect, as the sole Arbitrator.

(b) Asserting that the respondent failed to perform its part of the contract, the petitioners claimed to have invoked the arbitration by lodging a statement of claim with the named Arbitrator Mr. Kirti K. Shah, on 8th June, 2018. The respondent took a stand that the Arbitrator was ineligible for being appointed as an Arbitrator in the light of the provisions contained in Section 12(5) read with Seventh Schedule of the Act, 1996. Subsequently, the respondent filed an application before the arbitral Tribunal calling upon the sole Arbitrator Mr. Kirti K. Shah to recuse himself, alleging that on account of the continual professional and familial relationship between the said Arbitrator and Mr. Ramakant Rajnikant Mehta, the arbitrator had incurred disqualification. Vide communication dated 2nd November, 2018 Mr. Kirti K. Shah recused himself from the arbitration.

(c) As the mandate of the Arbitrator stood terminated, the applicants called upon the respondent vide notice dated 18th January, 2019 to convey consent for appointment of any of the three persons named therein as the sole Arbitrator. Instead, the respondent, by reply dated 12th February, 2019, suggested names of three other persons. The applicants conveyed their consent to the appointment of Mr. Shailesh Shah, Senior Counsel, as the sole Arbitrator. After a preliminary meeting held on 8th April, 2019, Mr. Shailesh Shah informed the parties that it would not be possible for him to act as an Arbitrator, vide communication dated 18th April, 2019.

(d) In the meanwhile, vide notice dated 24th April, 2019, the respondent raised certain claims against the applicants in respect of the same transaction and invoked the arbitration and suggested the name of a former Judge of this Court as the sole Arbitrator. The applicants conveyed their regret. By another communication dated 8th July, 2019, the applicants called upon the respondent to have a joint adjudication of the claim of the applicants and respondent and suggested the name of an Arbitrator. In response, the respondent suggested names of two other Arbitrators. The applicants declined to accept the nomination of the Arbitrator, as proposed by the respondent, and instead suggested the name of another Advocate practicing in this Court.

(e) The applicants have thus approached the Court with a case that multiple efforts between