IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

268 ARB-536-2025 (O&M)

Date of Decision:06.04.2026 M/S VCA Estate Private Limited ......Petitioner Versus Baldev Raj and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI Present:- Mr. Ambanshu Sahni, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Deepak Basatia, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3.

*****

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI J.(Oral)

1. The present is a petition filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator in the present case.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in pursuance of the order passed by this Court on 26.02.2026, he has today produced the original agreement before this Court and a photocopy of the same has already been attached along with the present petition as Annexure P-1. The aforesaid original agreement has been shown to this Court as well as to learned counsel for respondents Nos. 2 and 3. Learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3 states that there is no dispute with regard to the aforesaid agreement being executed between the parties, but he has various other objections with regard to the present petition filed under Section 11 of the Act. The aforesaid original agreement, after being shown to this Court and to the learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3, has been returned to the learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there exists an agreement to sell between the parties vide Annexure P-1. The agreement to sell was for the purpose of sale of some land belonging to the respondents, regarding which some earnest money has also been given to the respondents, and the agreement contains an arbitration clause, i.e., Clause No. 23, which provides that in the event of any disputes or differences arising out of the agreement, the same shall be referred to arbitration and the arbitration proceedings shall be conducted by a sole arbitrator mutually appointed by the parties. He further submitted that, since a dispute arose between the parties, the petitioner served a notice upon the respondents vide Annexure P-4 for invoking the arbitration clause and also proposed the names of arbitrators, but a reply was received from the respondents wherein they did not agree to the aforesaid appointment of the arbitrator. Therefore, he submitted that this Hon’ble Court may appoint a sole arbitrator for adjudicating the dispute.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents Nos. 2 and 3 submitted that he has four-fold objections. Firstly, although there exists an arbitration clause at Clause No. 23, which has been referred to by learned counsel for the petitioner, yet in addition thereto, there exists another clause, being Clause No. 20, which provides for the remedy of specific performance, and therefore, the petitioner ought to have filed a suit for specific performance instead of filing the present petition under Section 11 of the Act. Secondly, the signatures on the agreement were obtained from the respondents under undue influence and coercion. Thirdly, the terms and conditions of the agreement were never agreed to by the respondents and were also unreasonable in nature. Fourthly, the phone numbers which have been mentioned against the names of the respondents in the agreement do not belong to the respondents and, in fact, the same belong to the petitioner and some witnesses, which supports the arguments of the respondents that there was an element of undue influence and coercion. Learned counsel for respondents Nos. 2 and 3 further submitted that, in view of the aforesaid four objections, the present petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. He also submitted that, insofar as the earnest money paid by the petitioner to the respondents is concerned, the only amount transferred in favour of the respondents is Rs. 15,93,000/-, which is not in dispute; however, the respondents are ready and willing