1. The petition has been filed under S.11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, 'the 1996 Act') seeking appointment of sole Arbitrator at New Delhi to adjudicate the disputes and differences that have arisen between the parties.

2. The petitioner company is involved in real estate and infrastructure development works. It planned a residential project over about 50.10 acres of land at village Garhi Alawalpur, tehsil Dharuhera, district Rewari, which was owned by both the parties; 26 acres 5 kanals by the respondents, and about 9.52 acres by the petitioner; the remaining land was owned by other landowners / co - shares. A collaboration agreement was entered into between both the parties for development of the project, dated 05.11.2012, Annexure P - 3. Clause 28 whereof provided for resolution of disputes between the parties. Undisputedly, disputes and differences arose between them and the petitioner issued a legal notice, dated 05.08.2022, Annexure P - 16, for invocation of arbitration under the 1996 Act. The respondents did not reply to the notice, nor did they agree to appointment of arbitrator otherwise. Their plea is that the agreement does not envisage resolution of disputes through arbitration. The wording of clause 28 is the bone of contention between the parties, as to whether it postulates settlement of disputes by way of arbitration.

3. Mr. Chetan Mittal, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, has contended that a plain reading of clause 28 makes it clear that there exists an arbitration agreement for settlement of disputes between the parties. Therefore, the respondents have no right to object to the appointment of Arbitrator; they have duly executed the agreement and acknowledged existence of the disputes as well. Besides, the plea that invocation of arbitration is barred by limitation can also not be raised before this Court at this stage, as it is a subject matter of arbitral proceedings and can be decided by the arbitrator only. In support of the contentions, learned senior counsel has relied upon the judgments rendered by the Supreme Court in M/s Nandan Biomatrix Limited v. D 1 Oils Limited 2009 (4) SCC 495 : (2009 AIR SCW 2326); and M/s Uttarakhand Purv Sainik Kalyan Nigam Limited v. Northern Coal Field Limited 2020 (2) SCC 455 : (AIR 2020 SC 979).

4. Mr. Sumeet Mahajan learned senior counsel for the respondents, on the contrary, contends that there is no arbitration agreement between the parties, nor does clause 28 provide for it. The clause only stipulates that disputes between the parties are to be resolved by way of mediation, and if there is no resolution, the civil Court will have the authority to hear and decide the same. The jurisdiction to decide the disputes, accordingly, has been vested only with the civil Court, and not with any Arbitrator. He has heavily relied on the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Jagdish Chander v. Ramesh Chander and others 2007 (5) SCC 719, to contend that one of the essential ingredients of an arbitration agreement is that the private tribunal / arbitrator must be empowered to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties. And in case the agreement provides, as herein, that the party dissatisfied with the Arbitrator's decision can go to a civil Court seeking the desired relief, it cannot be termed an arbitration agreement as the adjudication of the dispute is left to the civil Court. It is also contended that the law laid down in Jagdish Chander case (supra) has been consistently followed by the Supreme Court. Lastly, learned senior counsel has contended that invocation of arbitration itself is time - barred, which will disentitle the petitioner to file the instant petition.

5. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have been considered.

6. It is well settled as held in M/s Nandan Biomatrix Limited case (supra) that in exercise of power under S.11 of the 1996 Act, the Court is only required to ascertain whether there is an arbi