The court validated arbitration clauses in agreements, emphasizing the necessity to arbitrate disputes as per the agreed terms.

O R D E R

1^st applicant is a private limited company and the 2^nd applicant is its Managing Director. The company is engaged in the business of construction, execution of work contracts and related activities. It proposed to construct multi-storied apartments in 10.98 Ares of property comprised in Old Survey No.2971/2-1, 2971/2, 2971/1, 2971/1-1, Re.Survey No.30, 31, 34 and 35 of Vanchiyoor Village, Thiruvananthapuram Taluk. Annexure A1 is a copy of the registration certificate dated 02.02.2023 issued by the Kerala Real Estate Regulatory Authority proving registration of the project. The company entered into a registered Joint Venture Agreement on 26.08.2022 with the 1^st respondent with respect to 4.80 Ares of property comprised in Re-Survey Nos.30 and 35 in Block No.65 of Vanchiyoor Village in Thiruvananthapuram Taluk. A copy of the Joint Venture Agreement is produced as Annexure

2.

2. The applicant company entered into similar Joint Venture agreements with respondents 2 to 4 also. The 4^th respondent expired during the pendency of this Arbitration Request and her legal representatives have been impleaded as additional respondents 5 to 7.

3. The dispute is between the applicant and the 1^st respondent. Therefore for the purpose of this Arbitration Request, Annexure 2 is the Agreement concerned.

4. Annexure 7 is a notice issued by the applicants to the 1^st respondent on 31.03.2024 wherein intention to refer the matter to arbitration was mentioned. Annexure 8 Reply was issued by the 1^st respondent. Later Annexure 12 Notice was issued by the 1^st respondent on 25.09.2024 to the applicants and two others. 1^st respondent invoked the arbitration clause in Annexure 2 Agreement by issuing Annexure 12 notice and called upon the applicants to appoint an Arbitrator of their choice. Thereafter this Arbitration Request was filed.

5. Notice was issued and respondents entered appearance. The 1^st respondent has filed a counter counter affidavit.

6. According to the applicants, the 1^st respondent refused to execute irrevocable Power of Attorney in favour of the company in violation of terms of Annexure 2 Joint Venture Agreement. The 1^st respondent in its counter affidavit points out that there are three suits pending between the parties. The said respondent has not objected reference of the dispute arising from Annexure 2 for arbitration. However the 1^st respondent has stated in the counter affidavit that the pendency of the suits shall also be taken into consideration by the arbitrator.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Senior Counsel for the 1^st respondent and also the respective counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 7.

8. Reply affidavit has been filed by the applicants in response to the counter affidavit. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions in the memorandum of Arbitration Request and controverted the case of the 1^st respondent raised in the counter affidavit regarding the pendency of the suits. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the subject matter of the suits are not matters arising from Annexure 2 Agreement. This submission is strongly opposed by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent and according to him, the disputes raised in the suits are also intrinsically related to the matters pertaining to Annexure 2 Agreement.

9. It is not within the scope of the application under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to decide on the merits of the disputes between the parties and to make observations. This Court has to look into only one aspect as to whether there is a valid Arbitration Agreement between the parties. I am satisfied that Annexure 2 Joint Ventur