The arbitration agreement binds all parties, including non-signatories, and disputes must be referred to arbitration despite objections on limitation and jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT

1. A petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for appointment of Sole Arbitrator for adjudication of the disputes between the parties.

2. The case of the petitioner is that respondent No.1 had approached petitioner No.1 for commercial development of the property known as "Rai-Ka-Bagh Palace" located in Jodhpur, Rajasthan as an ethnic Heritage Shopping Mall and Commercial Centre. On 06th December, 2004 a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was signed between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.1 at New Delhi. According to the MOU, the respondent No.1 was responsible to obtain clearances with regard to change in land use to commercial use and a Hotel. Pursuant thereto a Collaboration Agreement dated 01st February, 2005 was entered into between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.1. The possession was handed over to petitioner No.1 on 12th April, 2005 after which petitioner deployed guards and caretakers on the property for its upkeep. The work of dismantling etc. was started but the project could not move forward as respondent No.1 was unable to get the land use changed from residential to commercial.

3. After approximately five years on 04th April, 2010 a Joint Venture Agreement(JVA) was entered into between respondent No.1, respondent, 2, and petitioner No.2 while petitioner No.1 was the confirming party. It was provided in the Collaboration Agreement that if the condition precedent was not satisfied or waived within nine months of JV Agreement, the parties had a right to terminate the Agreement and upon such termination, the Collaboration Agreement dated 01st February, 2005 would bind the parties. Vide Addendum to the JV Agreement dated 04th April, 2010, the time period of nine months was extended to additional twelve months. Further, Article 15.12 of the JV Agreement provided for resolution of disputes through arbitration.

4. It is asserted that petitioners along with respondent No.2 complied with all the obligations under the Joint Venture Agreement. They carried out the repairs, maintenance and restoration. The land was also surveyed by the petitioners and respondent No.2. However, time and again the respondent No.1 failed to fulfil its obligations in terms of the Agreement. The change in land use Certificate was finally obtained on 07th March, 2014 after tireless efforts of petitioners and respondent No.2. The petitioners incurred an expenditure of Rs.5 crores including but not limited to various repairs and other works carried out in execution of the JV Agreement. However, respondent No.1 failed to fulfil its various obligations as envisaged in the JV Agreement.

5. The petitioners have asserted that the respondent No.1 for reasons best known to it, started looking for ways to wriggle out of the obligation and deliberately not cooperate with the petitioners with an intent to ensure that the Agreement is forfeited. This is evident from the letter dated 24th October, 2016 issued on behalf of respondent No.1 illegally revoking possession of the property on baseless and fraudulent grounds. Thereafter, the respondent No.1 vide communication dated 01st February, 2017 repeated its illegal claims. On 02nd February, 2017 the petitioners and their security guards were illegally evicted from the property. Civil Suit No.29/2018 titled `Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Limited