A court exercising jurisdiction under Section 11(6) must limit its enquiry to the existence of a valid arbitration agreement and the timeliness of the appointment application. Intricate evidentiary enquiries into the limitation of underlying claims are impermissible and must be determined by the Arbitral Tribunal.

JUDGMENT :

Gaurang Kanth, J.

1. The Petitioners have preferred the present petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of an arbitrator for adjudication of the disputes and differences alleged to have arisen between the parties out of and in connection with the Agreement for Sale dated 30.03.2015.

2. The facts leading to the filing of the present petition are as follows.

3. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, vide Agreement to Sale dated 24.04.2006, purchased the flat being Unit No. 3B, measuring about 2245.43 sq.ft. super built-up area on the 3rd floor of premises No. 12, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata – 700071, together with one car parking space at the ground floor, from Respondent No. 1 as owner and Respondent No. 4 as the Developer and Confirming Party. Possession of the said flat was handed over to Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 on 09.06.2008. Later, pending registration of the said flat in the name of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, the said Respondents approached the Petitioners for the sale of the said flat. Accordingly, the Petitioners entered into an Agreement for Sale dated 30.03.2015 with Respondent No. 1 as the vendor, Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 as the original buyers, and Respondent No. 4 as the Developer, in respect of the said flat. The total consideration for the said flat was agreed at Rs. 2,45,00,000/-. According to the Petitioners, the entire sale consideration was paid and possession of the said flat was handed over to them in the year 2015 itself.

4. It is the case of the Petitioners that under Clause 5.1 of the said Agreement for Sale, Respondent Nos. 1 and 4 were required to complete the sale and execute the conveyance in favour of the Petitioners within 15 days of the vendor and the Developer being ready, willing and able to execute and register the conveyance deed. However, according to the Petitioners, the execution and registration of the conveyance deed were deferred from time to time on various grounds.

5. The Petitioners have stated that Respondent No. 4 forwarded a draft conveyance deed, though certain clauses contained therein were objected to by the Petitioners, resulting in several meetings and exchanges between the parties. According to the Petitioners, the issues remained unresolved. The Petitioners have further alleged that conveyance deeds in respect of several other flats in the said premises were also not executed, as a result whereof the flat owners were unable to constitute a flat owners' association or obtain access to the accounts and records relating to the maintenance of the building. It is stated that Respondent No. 4 continued to manage and maintain the building premises, however, vide letter dated 17.08.2023, intimated that it would not be continuing with the maintenance activities beyond 30.08.2023.

6. The Petitioners have further stated that complaints were raised from time to time by the Petitioners and other residents regarding maintenance and upkeep of the building, which were denied by Respondent No. 4. Thereafter, by a letter dated 06.08.2025, the Petitioners called upon the Respondents to execute the conveyance deed. Respondent No. 4, by its reply dated 1