ARIJIT BANERJEE,J. - (1.) This is an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short 'the Act of 1996'), for appointment of an arbitrator for adjudication of disputes and differences that have arisen between the parties in relation to a Development Agreement dated December 15, 2006 (in short, 'the said Agreement') entered into by and between the parties. It is not in dispute that the said Agreement contains an arbitration clause for resolution of disputes and differences between the parties touching the said Agreement.
(2.) Schedule 'F' to the Development Agreement dated 15.12.2006 which contains the Arbitration Clause reads as follows: " SCHEDULE 'F' A R B I T R A T I O N 1. All disputes and differences between the parties hereto arising out of this agreement regarding this constructing or interpretation of any of the terms and conditions herein contained or determination of any liability or touching these presents shall be referred to the arbitration and the same shall be deemed to be a reference within the meaning of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or any statutory enactment or modification thereunder and the Award so delivered shall be conclusive and binding on the parties hereto. 2. The Arbitrator shall have summary power. 3. The parties hereto agree and covenant with each other that they have full trust and faith in the Arbitrator and agree not to challenge and / or dispute the same in any manner whatsoever or howsoever."
(3.) The respondents opposed the application primarily on two grounds. Firstly, it was argued that no notice under Section 21 of the Act of 1996 was given by the petitioner to the respondents. In the absence of such a notice, the present application is premature and not maintainable. Secondly, the respondents have filed a complaint against the petitioner before the National Consumer Forum, New Delhi, in relation to disputes arising out of the said Agreement. It was submitted that initiation of an arbitration proceeding by appointment of an arbitrator would mean that there will be parallel proceedings which ought not to be permitted. Although a third ground has been indicated in the written notes of argument filed by the respondents, i.e., the said Agreement is not registered as required under Section 17 of the Registration Act, this point was not argued when the matter was heard. In any event, this point can be rejected at the threshold since the said Agreement being of the year 2006, there was at that time no requirement for registering the said Agreement.;