1. Applicant-Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Ltd., a company registered under Companies Act, 1956 has approached this court by way of the present application filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, praying for appointment of the sole Arbitrator to adjudicate its dispute with the respondents.

2. Applicant-company signed a Memorandum of Understanding (for short-`the MoU')/agreement with Chanda Ram S/o Shri Bheru Ram on 31.8.2004. It was agreed therein that two bighas of land belonging to Chanda Ram of khasra no.42/1 in village Nahari Ka Baas of Tehsil, Jaipur would be handed over to the applicant-company, which shall develop the same 3 into a Township and in lieu thereof, a sum of Rs.80,000 was paid to said chanda Ram at the time of signing of the MoU. It was agreed that after development of the land, Chanda Ram would be given developed plot measuring 800 sq. yards per bigha of land, thus a total of 1600 sq. yards in all. Yet another MoU was executed with Chanda Ram and others of abadi land and well on 23.5.2005. Chanda Ram has also executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of applicant-company for doing all these needful acts with regard to land, its development, sale etc. The land was converted for residential purpose by order of the District Collector, Jaipur dated 27.12.2005. The lay out plan of the land was approved by Gram Panchayat Hatodh on 20.7.2007. The applicant-company levelled the land, demarcated the roads, completed the work of water, sewerage and electric lines etc. The applicant-company claimed to have allotted seven plots measuring 300 sq. yards to Chanda Ram by letter dated 19.4.2008. Land measuring 1600 sq. yards were allotted to Chanda Ram in respect of first MoU and 500 sq. yards to Chanda Ram and others in respect of second MoU. Chanda Ram and others submitted an application for allotting aforementioned seven plots to certain other persons indicated in the letter dated 21.4.2009. It is on that basis that the actual possession of the land was given to these seven persons on 6.10.2009.

3. That the dispute cropped up between the parties in 2011 when Chanda Ram and others forcibly occupied the land. Chanda Ram died on 31.1.2012. It is alleged that Chanda Ram's sons (respondents herein) illegally occupied the plot no.GH1 & GH2 measuring 7706 sq. mtrs. on 5.5.2012. A First Information Report was lodged by the company against them on 14.5.2012. It is then alleged that respondents illegally occupied six more plots measuring 918 sq. mtrs and then three more plots measuring 306 sq. mtrs. belonging to the applicant company. The applicant-company thereupon served on the respondents, a legal notice through their counsel for referring the matter for arbitration as per clause 27 of the MoU by suggesting the name of Shri Askaran Prajapat, retired District and Sessions Judge. The respondents through their counsel sent reply dated 10.8.2015 alelging that they have already annulled the MoU/agreement on 13.10.2009 and that a notice dated 22.10.2011 was allegedly sent to the company's headquarter at New Delhi to this effect.

4. Shri R.C. Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant in the aforesaid facts prayed for appointment of sole arbitrator for resolving the dispute between the applicant-company with the respondents.

5. Shri R.C. Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant cited the judgement of Supreme Court in Communications Inc. Vs. Iol Broadband Limited-(2010) 1 Supreme Court Cases 562 and argued that therein the Supreme Court has held that arbitration clause in agreement need not be stamped and the similar argument was rejected.

6. Learned counsel relied on the constitution bench judgement of Supreme Court in SBP & CO. Vs. Patel Engineering Ltd. and Another-(2005) 8 Supreme Court Cases 618 and argued that the Chief Justice or the designate while dealing with an application u