Mr. Mohammad Rafiq, J.

1. This application under Section 10 and 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been filed by applicant-Trade Swift Developers Private Ltd., a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, praying for appointment of Arbitral Tribunal for resolving its dispute with the non-applicants.

2. Dispute between the parties pertains to a piece of land measuring 11608 sq. yards comprising in Khasra no.330 of Revenue Village Barodia, Tehsil and District Jaipur situated at Station Road, Jaipur. This land was purchased by the respondents by three different sale deeds dated 2.6.1972. Parties executed unregistered Memorandum of Understanding (for short-’MoU’) dated 19.10.2007 where under the respondents agreed to sale part of the aforesaid land measuring 8883 sq. yards to the applicant with existing constructions, for a lumpsum sale consideration of Rs.47,25,00,000. Clause 18 of the said MoU pertains to arbitration, which inter alia provides that parties shall, subject to Kolkata jurisdiction, resort to the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 at Kolkata, for resolution of any dispute or difference between them on any of the issues relating to the terms and conditions of the said MoU.

3. Shri Devidutt Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant paid a sum of Rs.4 crore in advance to the respondents and thereafter further paid a sum of Rs.2.20 crores. Thus a total of Rs.6.20 crores has been paid against the agreed sale consideration. However, despite repeated requests of the applicant, the respondents did not handover the original title deed of the said property for inspection. After about a year of execution of the MoU, the respondents came out with a concocted story that the documents have been misplaced/lost. The respondents deliberately did not perform their part of obligation in the MoU, whereas applicant was all along ready and willing to perform its part of obligation. It is contended that applicant issued letter dated 5.8.2008 to the respondents to provide the required documents and also expressed his readiness and willingness to pay the rest amount of sale consideration and get the sale deed registered. The representative of the applicant approached the respondents from time to time and insisted on execution of the sale deed after fulfilling all terms and conditions, as agreed, but the respondents did not comply. All of a sudden, the respondents by notice dated 24.2.2010 cancelled the MoU. It is contended that the respondents have thus breached the terms and conditions of the signed agreement, which gave rise to dispute. Applicant therefore served a legal notice on the respondents by invoking clause 18 of the MoU relating to arbitration.

4. Shri Devidutt Sharma, learned counsel for he applicant, relying on the judgment of Supreme Court in Rajesh Verma v. Ashwani Kumar Khanna-AIR 2016 SC 1910, argued that Supreme Court in that case has held that the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 11 of the Act is limited and confined to examining whether or not there is an arbitration agreement between the parties and if so, whether any dispute has arisen between them, which calls for appointment of arbitrator. Once that is so held, the Court has to merely make a reference of all such dispute to the arbitrator for decision. The objection raised by the respondents with regard to non-registration of MoU and non-payment of stamp duty, is therefore, liable to be rejected.

5. Learned counsel argued that the respondents are estopped from raising this objection because they themselves filed an application under Section 11(5) of the Act before the Calcutta High Court although that was dismissed on the ground of territorial jurisdiction on 14.9.2012. There is thus implicit admission on the part of the respondents as to the existence of the dispute and also the justifiability of reference to the Arbitrator. The respondents, therefore, now cannot be allowe