IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA REQ. CASE No.36 of 2008 Mithilesh Kumar Gupta, Son of Sri Hari Narayan Gupta, Machhuatoli, Arya Kumar Road, P.S. – Kadamkuan, District – Patna. …. Petitioner. Versus 1. M/s Jai Shree Developer India Private Ltd. Company in Corporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Nala Road, Patna, Bihar Governed and Managed through its Manager Director Sri Ranjan Kumar Sinha, Son of Late Jagarnath Sahay, residing at Jagarnath Tower, Nala Road, Patna – 800 003. 2. Sri Ranjan Kumar Sinha the Managing Director, Son of Late Jagarnath Sahay residing at Jagarnath Tower, Nala Road, Patna – 800 003. …. Respondents. For the Petitioner : - Mr. N.K. Agarwal, Senior Advocate. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Mishra, Advocate. For the Respondents: - Mr. Sunil Srivastava, Advocate. Mr. R.R. Tripathi, Advocate. ----------- 04/ 30.04.2009 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 1. This application has been filed by one Mithilesh Kumar Gupta for appointment of an independent arbitrator for settlement of the dispute with regard to purchase of flat from the developers, namely, Respondent No.1, whose Managing Director is Respondent No. 2. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide Clause 23 of agreement for sale of flat in question dated 15.12.2003 the provision of arbitration was made. He further submits that in the instant case the price of the flat was about Rs.5,00,000/-, out of which according to the petitioner about Rs.2,40,000/- were paid, whereas according to the respondents only Rs.1,42,000/- was paid by the petitioner to the respondents and that amount too was deposited in the court by the respondents while being released on bail in a complaint case filed by the petitioner, which is pending. - 2 - 3. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the entire agreement for sale is forged and fabricated and even several clauses had been inserted and forged seals have been used and hence, no arbitration or reconciliation can be done. He also claimed that the petitioner has not brought on record any receipt showing any payment and hence, the arbitration clause of the said agreement could not be relied upon for referring the matter to the arbitrator. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is admitted fact that respondents are developers, who has constructed flats in question and respondents had received even according to their case about Rs.1,42,000/- from the petitioner for the flat in question. It is, thus, apparent that without any agreement there was no occasion for the respondents to receive that amount from the petitioner. Further more, when the receipt of the said amount is admitted there is no occasion for the petitioner to produce any receipt with respect thereto. Hence agreement for sale between the parties is quite apparent from their respective claims. 5. In addition to the aforesaid facts and circumstances from Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, it is quite apparent that arbitral tribunal is quite competent to rule on its own jurisdiction including ruling on any objection with respect to the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement and for that purpose special provision has been made. 6. In the said circumstances, Hon’ble Justice Ghanshyam - 3 - Prasad, Retired Judge of this Court is appointed as Arbitrator to look into the matter and decide the arbitration proceeding in accordance with law. Both parties are directed to appear before Hon’ble Justice Ghanshyam Prasad within two weeks along with a copy of this order. The said Arbitrator will be at liberty to fix the dates and his remuneration and expenses, which would be borne half and half by both the parties. 7. This application is, accordingly, disposed of. DKS/ (S.N. Hussain, J.)