ORDER :

Prayer: Original Petition filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to appoint a sole Arbitrator to decide the disputes between the parties that have arisen under the Agreement dated 01.12.2019 and the supplemental agreement dated 02.12.2019 as per the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996.

Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.) No.29 of 2022 is filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in the matter of agreement dated 01.12.2019 read with Supplemental Agreement dated 02.12.2019, for appointment of sole Arbitrator to decide the issues between the parties that have been arisen under these agreements.

2. Arb.O.A.(Comm.Div) No.65 of 2022 is filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in the matter of agreement dated 01.12.2019 read with Supplemental Agreement dated 02.12.2019, for an order of interim injunction restraining the respondents, their men, agents, servants and any one claiming under them from in any way alienating or encumbering the properties morefully described in the schedule pending disposal of the arbitral proceedings till it reaches its finality in the manner known to law.

3. In both cases, applicant/petitioner and respondents are same persons and the issues involved are also the same, except the prayer. The case of the applicant/petitioner is that it entered into an agreement dated 01.12.2019 with the respondents for the purchase of the schedule property. The total sale consideration of the property is Rs.105 crores and the total extent of land is 4.44 acres. The applicant/petitioner paid a sum of Rs.22,75,00,000/- as advance on 01.12.2019. It was agreed that the balance sale consideration shall be paid at the time of registration of the schedule property. The first respondent represented that there were certain litigations pending with respect to certain portion of the schedule property, but he has not clearly stated what are all the issues except the pendency of the civil suit in C.S.No.161 of 2014 before this Court. Thereafter, the applicant/petitioner identified additional issues and in this regard, a supplemental agreement dated 02.12.2019 was executed. On 02.12.2019, the applicant/petitioner paid a sum of Rs.1,55,20,283/-. The first respondent handed over all the original title deeds in respect of the schedule property. The applicant/petitioner incurred a sum of Rs.1,20,00,000/- as expenses towards various expenses in connection with the said transactions. It had also made arrangement with Primal Group and Kotak Investment Advisors Limited for a loan of Rs.120 crores. The applicant/petitioner is always ready and willing to perform its part of the obligation in the agreements dated 01.12.2019 and 02.12.2019. It called upon the respondents through a legal notice dated 15.10.2021 to comply with the terms of the agreements. The first respondent issued a reply dated 25.10.2021 making false and frivolous allegations. The applicant issued a rejoinder dated 03.11.2021. It was returned with an endorsement “left” by the first respondent. Again rejoinder was sent to the first respondent on 08.11.2021 and the same was received. The first respondent's counsel sent a reply to the rejoinder on 16.11.2021. The second respondent has received notice, but not replied till date. The rejoinder dated 03.11.2021 and the legal notice dated 02.12.2021 were sent to the third respondent, but they have been returned with an endorsement “no such person”. Clause 9 of the agreement dated 01.12.2019 allows the parties to establish their rights through arbitration proceedings if any difference of opinion occurs. The applicant/petitioner had also issued a legal notice, dated 02.12.2021, calling upon the respondents to agree to refer the matter for arbitration, suggesting three names for appointing a sole arbitrator. Notice was received by the respondents 1 and 2. But the notice sent to third respondent was returned as “No such person”. The respondents 1 and 2 have