MOHAMMAD RAFIQ,J. - (1.) This application under Section 8 read with section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was filed by the applicant way back on 3.2.2011 praying for appointment of an independent Arbitrator and referring the dispute between the parties for resolution to him.
(2.) In the application, the applicant has pleaded that a collaboration agreement was executed on 6.8.2007 between the applicant and the family members of the respondent-Smt. Kaushalya Pareek, Sunita Pareek, Sarita Pareek and Manisha Pareek, all legal representatives of late Narayan Pareek, resident of D67/A, Sawai Madho Road, Bani Parek, Jaipur. It was agreed between the parties that the land comprising in the said plot shall be developed by constructing multi-storied building. The respondent agreed to provide documents of the property to the applicant so that necessary permission for construction can be obtained from Nagar Nigam, Jaipur. The respondent also agreed to provide signatures of family members on collaboration agreement for all purposes. It was agreed that a sum of Rs. 60,00,000 would be given by the applicant to the respondent as security, out of which a sum of Rs. 21,00,000 was actually given to respondent. In spite of receipt of said amount, the respondent did not get the surrender deed from their sisters and also did not get the signatures of other family members on the collaboration agreement. The respondent even did not make the title documents available to the applicant so as to enable it to obtain permission of construction from the Nagar Nigam.
(3.) The applicant sent a legal notice to the respondent on 15.12.2009 requesting him to perform the conditions of the agreement. The respondent in reply to the legal notice sent through their counsel on 19.12.2009, stated that applicant was still required to pay Rs. 40,00,000 to the respondent as only Rs. 21,00,000 were paid. The applicant in rejoinder sent on 6.1.2010 mentioned that he is prepared to pay remaining amount of Rs. 40,00,000, subject to providing signatures of other family members. In response to this, the respondents sent a communication dated 12.10.2010 conveying that agreement be taken as cancelled. It is at this stage that the applicant sent a notice to the respondent for referring the dispute to the arbitration and calling upon them to give their consent for appointing Shri Anil Suroliya, a retired District Judge as sole Arbitrator as per clause 25 of the agreement. The respondent refused to receive the said communication. The registered envelope was returned to the applicant with the remark that the respondent was not found on given address.;