A referral court under Section 11(6) must verify the existence of an arbitration agreement and the timeliness of the petition. It cannot perform an intricate evidentiary inquiry into whether underlying substantive claims are time-barred, as such questions fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the appointed arbitrator.

JUDGMENT :

Gaurang Kanth, J.

1. The Petitioners have preferred the present petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of an arbitrator for adjudication of the disputes and differences alleged to have arisen between the parties out of and in connection with the Agreement for Sale dated 27.03.2007.

2. The facts leading to the filing of the present petition are as follows:

3. The Petitioners entered into an Agreement for Sale dated 27.03.2007 with Respondent No. 1 as the vendors, the Petitioners as the purchasers, and Respondent No. 2 as the confirming party, in respect of purchase of a flat being Unit No. 3D, measuring about 2832 sq.ft. super built-up area on the 3rd floor of premises No. 12, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata – 700071, together with two car parking spaces on the ground floor of the said premises. The total consideration for the said flat was agreed at Rs. 55,10,000/-. According to the Petitioners, the entire sale consideration was paid and possession of the said flat was handed over to them in the year 2007 itself.

4. It is the case of the Petitioners that under Clause 2.3 of the said Agreement for Sale, the Respondents were required to complete the sale and execute the conveyance in favour of the Petitioners simultaneously with the delivery of possession of the said unit. However, according to the Petitioners, the execution and registration of the conveyance deed were deferred from time to time on various grounds.

5. The Petitioners have stated that Respondent No. 2 forwarded a draft conveyance deed, though certain clauses therein were objected to by the Petitioners, resulting in several meetings and exchanges between the parties. According to the Petitioners, the issues remained unresolved. The Petitioners have further alleged that conveyance deeds in respect of several other flats in the said premises were also not executed, as a result whereof the flat owners were unable to constitute a flat owners’ association or obtain access to the accounts and records relating to the maintenance of the building. It is stated that Respondent No. 2 continued to manage and maintain the building premises.

6. The Petitioners have further stated that complaints were raised from time to time by the Petitioners and other residents regarding maintenance and upkeep of the building. The said allegations were denied by the Respondents through a reply dated 30.09.2023. Thereafter, by a letter dated 09.01.2024, the Petitioners called upon the Respondents to execute the conveyance deed. Respondent No. 2, by its reply dated 06.02.2024, denied any liability to execute the conveyance deed and stated that such obligation, if any, vested upon Respondent No. 1. The Petitioners replied thereto by letter dated 21.05.2024, to which Respondent No. 2 responded by letter dated 06.06.2024 reiterating its earlier stand.

7. In view of the disputes and differences alleged to have arisen between the parties, the Petitioners invoked the arbitration clause contained in Clause 11.1 of the Agreement for Sale dated 27.03.2007 by issuing a notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. By the said notice, the Petitioners proposed the name of Mr. Saptarshi Banerjee, Advocate, as the Sole Arbitrator for adjudication of the disputes between the parties.

8. The arbitration clause contained in the Agreement provides that disputes and differences arising out of or relating to the said unit and/or the a