The arbitration clause in a contract should be treated as an independent agreement, and the court has the authority to refer the matter to arbitration even if the main contract is disputed.

ORDER

Chandra Dhari Singh, J. (Oral)--The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1996") seeking appointment of an Arbitrator for redressal of disputes arising between the parties, pertaining to the Memorandum of Family Settlement (hereinafter referred to as "MoU") dated 31st May, 2020.

Facts of the Case

2. The parties desired to redevelop/reconstruct the property bearing No. 39B/77, Punjabi Bagh West, Near ISKON Temple, New Delhi-110026, i.e., the subject property, and thus entered into a Collaboration Agreement with a Builder on 31stMay, 2020.

3. Prior to the reconstruction of the subject property, the petitioner was the owner and occupant of the first floor, while the respondents were co-owners of the ground floor. The petitioner and the respondents signed an MoU on 31st May, 2020 to document and adhere by the provisions guiding the redevelopment of the subject property.

4. According to the aforementioned MoU, it was agreed that the Builder will construct a stilt parking, ground floor, first floor, second floor and third floor over the subject property at his own costs and expenses and in exchange will retain the second floor of the newly constructed building and would pay a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- to the parties, equally.

5. According to clause 1.b of the MoU, it was also agreed that the stilt parking would be shared by all inhabitants, the petitioner would own the ground level and 50% of the first floor, and the respondents would own the third floor with terrace and 50% of the first floor.

6. According to clause 1.e of the MoU between the petitioner and the respondents, the petitioner will sell/convey/transfer the 50% of his ownership and interest in the first floor of the newly constructed building over the property by the Builder, which shall be in joint ownership as mentioned above, to the respondents, upon receipt of mutually agreed consideration of Rs.67,50,000/- from the respondents plus Rs.12,50,000/- from the Builder. That as per agreed terms in the said clause, the agreed amount was payable on or before, the Builder completed the construction and furnished the building, to the satisfaction of the petitioner and the respondents.

7. Furthermore, clause 1.d of the MoU stipulates that the respondents cannot take ownership of the first floor until the requirement outlined in clause 1.e is met, and that the first floor cannot be utilised or enjoyed in any way by the respondents or anyone acting on their behalf. It was expressly agreed that the first floor would remain locked until the absolute conformity with clause 1.e. as mentioned above is achieved.

Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner

8. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that post re-construction of the building, in accordance with the collaboration agreement dated 31st May, 2020, the respondents have egregiously failed to comply with the conditions of the MoU dated 31st May, 2022 and have willfully neglected to pay the agreed-upon consideration as per clause 1.e of the MoU.

9. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in contravention of clause 1.d of the MoU, not only the respondents have violated the conditions of the MoU, but also are illegally and violently attempting to seize ownership of the first floor of the newly constructed building.

10. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that respondents being under legal and contractual obligation to discharge the liability of Rs.1,67,50,000/- along with interest on outstanding amount, the petitioner issued a notice dated 8thSeptember, 2022 to discharge the aforementioned liability within 7 days, commencing from the receipt of the notice.

11. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner being aggrieved by the illegal act of the respondents was constrained to invoke the arbitration clause, i.e., clause 5 of the MoU, in accordance with Se