1. This application has been filed by the petitioner seeking appointment of independent Arbitrator to resolve its disputes with the respondent.

2. The petitioner is a partnership firm working as a contractor in construction industry. A contract came to be signed in between the petitioner and respondent on 08.01.2011 whereby the petitioner agreed to furnish them construction services worth nearly Rs.1.09 crore. In the contract it was made clear that the liability of payment of service tax would be borne by the respondent. The project was completed by the petitioner without there being any complaint. The services rendered by the petitioner were excellent in respect of time schedule, quality and investment. In the course of time, the petitioner raised six bills amounting to Rs.1.09 crore and all have been cleared without any objection. As per the agreement/contract, it was the respondent, who had to pay the service tax worth nearly Rs.5.93 lacs to the Central Government, but the respondent failed to comply with the terms of the contract/agreement. The petitioner repeatedly requested the respondent to comply with the terms of the contract/agreement. The petitioner even sent a legal notice dated 16.04.2016 to the respondent through its counsel requesting them to act in fair and clear manner to respect the terms and conditions of the agreement dated 08.01.2011. Despite repeated requests, the respondent failed to make payment of the service tax. Thus, a dispute arose between the petitioner and the respondent. Hence this petition.

3. Mr. J.P. Gargey, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Black Pearl Hotels Private Limited Vs. Planet M. Retail Limited – (2017) 4 SCC 498 and argued that now in view of insertion of sub-Section (6A) to Section 11 by the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015, all that this court to see in application under Section 11 of the Act of 1996 is whether there exists an arbitration clause in the agreement and that this court cannot go into any other aspect including whether or not the agreement has been duly stamped.

4. The Supreme Court in Black Pearl Hotels Private Limited, supra, has held that the intention of the Legislature manifests in Section 11(6A) ought to be respected, argued the learned counsel.

5. Mr. Akash Gupta, brief holder of Mr. Amit Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent however at the outset submitted that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in M/s. SMS Tea Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Chanmari Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. - (2011) 14 SCC 66 and that of this Court in Trade Swift Developers Private Limited Vs. Gopal Prasad Kanoria and others – 2017 (2) WLC (Raj.) 569 and Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Limited Vs. Smt. Jhamru & Others – 2017 (2) WLC (Raj.) 485, present application is not maintainable, as the agreement in the present case is not sufficiently stamped. This Court in the aforenoted cases, while dismissing the applications, has granted liberty to the applicants to file fresh arbitration applications after getting the agreements sufficiently stamped.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

7. The question with regard to maintainability of an application for agreement not being duly stamped fell for consideration of this court in Trade Swift Developers Private Limited Vs. Gopal Prasad Kanoria and others (S.B. Arbitration Application No. 30/2014). In that case too, the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rajesh Verma vs. Ashwani Kumar Khanna - AIR 2016 SC 1910, and argued that Supreme Court held therein 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 arbitra