The referral court's jurisdiction under Section 11(6) is limited to confirming the existence of a valid arbitration agreement and the timely filing of the request for appointment. It must not conduct an intricate evidentiary inquiry into whether the underlying substantive claims are barred by limitation.

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 22.09.2009.

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

3. Petitioner No. 1, Rani Kaur Matharoo, along with her late husband Bhagwan Singh Matharoo, entered into an Agreement for Sale dated 22.09.2009 with Respondent No. 1, Swastik Project Private Limited, as the Developer and transferor, and Respondent No. 2, Chitrita Dey, in respect of purchase of a flat being Unit No. 3C, having a super built-up area of 2227.14 sq.ft. more or less on the 3rd floor of premises No. 12, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata – 700071, together with two covered car parking spaces on the ground floor of the said premises. The total consideration for the said flat was agreed at Rs. 34,40,710/-. According to the Petitioners, the entire sale consideration was paid and possession of the said flat was thereafter handed over to them. It is further stated that Bhagwan Singh Matharoo died on 24.12.2018, leaving behind his wife and daughter as his only heirs, and accordingly the share of the said Bhagwan Singh Matharoo passed in equal proportions to Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 respectively.

4. It is the case of the Petitioners that under Clauses 2.3 and 2.5 of the said Agreement for Sale, Respondent No. 1 was duty bound to complete the sale and transfer of the said flat in favour of the Petitioners within 18 months from the date of execution of the Agreement for Sale dated 22.09.2009. 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. 1 forwarded a draft Deed of Conveyance, though certain clauses contained therein were objected to by the Petitioners, including the absence of any provision for clear access to the entire ultimate roof of the said building, which had been encroached upon by Respondent No. 1, 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. Respondent No. 1 continued to manage and maintain the building premises until it intimated, vide letter dated 17.08 2023, that it would not be continuing with the maintenance activities beyond 31.08.2023.

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. Thereafter, by letter dated 14.09.2023, the residents of the building including the Petitioners called upon Respondent No. 1 with regard to discrepancies in the handling of the maintenance fund and its breach of obligation to execute the Deed of Conveyance. Respondent No. 1, by its reply dated 30th September, 2023, denied the contents of the said letter without providing any justifiable explanation in respect of the grievances raised therein. The Petitioners along with other residents replied thereto by joint letter dated 06.08.2025, to which Respondent No. 1 responded by