The court must be satisfied of the genuineness of agreements before appointing an arbitrator, and the complexity of the dispute may warrant declining to appoint an arbitrator.

1. A detailed order was passed by this Court on 23rd April, 2015 in which it sets out the background facts as well. The said order reads as under:

“1. Mr. Sulekh Aggarwal, a resident of Pitampura in Delhi first approached this Court by filing four petitions under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('Act') i.e. OMP No. 352/2012, 353/2012, 354/2012 & 355/2012 seeking interim reliefs against Shiv Astha Construction Company Ltd. through its Director, Mr. Anil Kukreja.

2. In the said four petitions Mr. Aggarwal stated that four agreements to sell and purchase were executed by him and the Respondent on 25th August 2011 in terms of which the Respondent agreed to sell to the Petitioner the following four properties located at Central Technology Park, G.T. Kamal Road, Bhalgarh, Sonepat, Haryana;

(a) Unit No. 27, 28, 29, 30 &31, Ground Floor, measuring 2965 Sq. Ft. approximately@Rs.3,500/- per Sq. Ft.

(b) Entire Basement, measuring 15000 Sq. Ft. approximately, @ Rs. 1,000/-, per Sq. Ft.

(c) Unit No. 01, Ground Floor, measuring 1750 Sq. Ft. approximately @ Rs.3,500/- per Sq. Ft.

(d) Unit No. 68, First Floor, measuring 405 Sq. Ft. approximately @ Rs. 1.750/-per Sq. Ft.

3. The case of Mr. Aggarwal was that he paid the Respondent the entire consideration of Rs. 3.22 crores and was given possession of the aforementioned properties. Along with the petitions, Mr. Aggarwal filed photocopies of the said four agreements to sell along with photocopies of stamped receipts executed by Mr. Kukreja on behalf of the Respondent purportedly acknowledging payment of the sale consideration.

4. According to Mr. Aggarwal, the Respondent assured him that sale deeds in respect of the properties will be executed within a reasonable period. However, the Respondent failed to do so. Mr. Aggarwal issued a legal demand notice dated 5th December, 2011 calling upon the Respondent and Mr. Kukreja to come forward to execute the Sale Deeds. By a reply dated 15th December, 2011 the Respondent denied the allegations. It was stated that m terms of a Memorandum of Understanding ('MOU') dated 27 July, 2011 the Petitioner had agreed to advance to the Respondent a loan of Rs.2 crores with interest which was to be disbursed in instalments. The loan was for the purpose of construction which the Respondent was undertaking. As security for the loan, the Respondent had to give collateral and had therefore given some blank signed papers to the Petitioner. The Respondent denied having executed any agreement to sell or having received Rs.3.22 crores as alleged by the Petitioner for any sale of the properties. According to the Respondent he received only Rs.20 lakhs in cash on 9th August, 2011. The Respondent alleged that the four agreements to sell were forged documents.

5. On 19th January, 2012 a further demand notice was sent by Mr. Aggarwal to the Respondent, this time invoking the Arbitration clause in the agreements to sell. The Petitioner nominated a sole Arbitrator and sought the consent of the Respondent for the said appointment.

6. It appears that Mr. Kukreja as Director of the Respondent, filed Civil Suit No. 16 of 2012 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Rohini Courts, Delhi against Mr. Aggarwal praying inter alia for a permanent and mandatory injunction to restrain Mr. Aggarwal and his nominees "from using the forged and fabricated documents dated 25.08.2011 or acting upon the basis of the said agreements dated 25.08.2011 many manner in future".

7. It was at that stage that Mr. Aggarwal filed the four petitions under Section 9 of the Act praying inter alia for an order to restrain the Respondent from selling, transferring or interfering with the Petitioner's possession of the suit properties during the pendency of the Arbitration proceedings. In the said four petitions the court initially passed an interim order on 16th April, 2012 directing the R