The Court emphasized the restrictive scope of jurisdiction at the referral stage under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and highlighted the need to weed out manifestly non-existent and invalid arbitration agreements and non-arbitrable disputes.

JUDGMENT

1. These petitions have been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act.) seeking appointment of an Arbitrator for adjudicating the disputes that have arisen between the parties in relation to the Collaboration Agreement dated 03.05.2005 executed between the parties (hereinafter referred to as the `Collaboration Agreement.).

2. The Collaboration Agreement admittedly contains an Arbitration Agreement between the parties in the form of Clause 14 thereof.

3. As both the petitions arise out of the same Collaboration Agreement and are between the same parties, the same are being considered by way of this common order.

4. As noted hereinabove, the parties have entered into a Collaboration Agreement where under the petitioner was to construct the ground floor, first floor, second floor with its roof rights after demolishing the structure present on the land bearing No.A-2/5 admeasuring 450 sq. yards, Model Town, New Delhi belonging to the respondent. The petitioner claims that he performed his part under the Agreement by constructing the building on 31.12.2005. He, however, further admits that thereafter the property was sealed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi on 30.05.2006 due to unauthorized construction carried out therein. It is further admitted that the respondent terminated the Collaboration Agreement vide notice dated 11.05.2007. The respondent also invoked the Arbitration Agreement claiming damages from the petitioner.

5. The petitioner further claims to have sent a legal notice dated 08.06.2007 claiming ownership rights over the entire second floor and the entire third floor of the building constructed by him along with the roof/terrace rights thereon.

6. A Sole Arbitrator was thereafter appointed by this Court on a petition filed under Section 11 of the Act by the respondent. The learned Sole Arbitrator vide her Award dated 29.12.2017, held as under:

"18. In view of the foregoing, following award is passed:

a) Claimant sought permission to apply to the MCD/concerned authority for de-sealing the premises in question and for the purpose of bringing the structure within the norms of the permissible limits. Record reveals that claimant had moved an application under Section 17 of the Act seeking permission to peruse the matter for de-sealing of the premises with MCD and after the property is de-sealed, he be permitted to reside in the property without any obstruction and hindrance from the respondent. The application was partly allowed vide order dated 16.12.2010 and claimant was allowed to approach the competent authority for de-sealing the property.

However, second relief regarding occupation of the property was not granted being premature. During the course of arguments, it was admitted by the claimant that so far permission for de-sealing the property has not been granted. Even counsel for respondent did not oppose grant of this relief. However, it was submitted that claimant and respondent should jointly apply for de-sealing of the property. In view of the past conduct of respondent in raising unauthorized construction resulting in its sealing since 2006 and depriving the claimant of its use who is the absolute owner of the property and is a senior citizen now aged about 80 years old, this submission cannot be acceded to. Claimant is permitted to apply to the MCD/concerned authorities for de-sealing of the property for the purpose of bringing the structure within the norms of permissible limits.

b) In view of my discussion as above on different claims, the claimant is awarded a total sum of Rs.1,39,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Thirty Nine Lakh Only).

c) Respondent or any other person claiming through him is restrained from entering/trespassing into the premises in question.

d) He is awarded interest on the principal amount of Rs.1,14,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Fourteen Lakh Only as per claim A and B) @12% per annum w.e.f May 2006 till the date of