- (1.) The arbitration agreement is not in dispute. That there are live claims to be carried to a reference under such arbitration agreement is evident and is also admitted. The respondent has only questioned the propriety of the Chief Justice of this court or his designate to receive this request under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
(2.) A squabble over who is the more appropriate Chief Justice to receive a request under Section 11 of the 1996 Act is, at best, needless and a waste of time. For, unlike in a suit or other proceedings where the situs of an action may confer some benefit on a party and cause inconvenience to another, the extent of authority exercised under Section 11 of the Act is so limited that the need to urge such ground cannot be appreciated. Since, however, the objection has been raised, it needs to be dealt with.
(3.) The petitioners are the owners, and in possession, of a piece of land or an immovable property in Jaipur; in respect whereof the parties have executed an unregistered memorandum of understanding on October 19, 2007 which contemplates the ultimate sale of the property by the petitioners to the respondent on the terms and conditions which are completely irrelevant for the present purpose. The document of October 19, 2007 contains the following arbitration clause: "18. That the parties hereto have specifically agreed that any dispute or difference of opinion on any of the issues pertaining to the terms and conditions of this MOU to solve the same by resort to the provisions of the Arbitration and Reconciliation Act, 1996 at Kolkata and also subject to the Kolkata jurisdiction.";