29-ARBAP-228-2026.doc Vivekanand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO. 228 OF 2026 Jagruti T Sharma & Ors. … Applicants V/s. Amber Apartment Makers Pvt Ltd … Respondent Ms. Usha Singh i/by Vyas & Bhalwal, for the Applicants. Mr. Karl Tamboly a/w Ms. Nikita Vardhan a/w. Ms.Srushtee Panhale i/by Kanga & Co, for the Respondent. CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J. DATED : AUGUST 28, 2026 P.C.: 1. The present Application has been filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Act”), seeking appointment of an Arbitrator in respect of the disputes and differences stated to have arisen between the parties under the respective agreements dated 25 November 1988. The arbitration agreement between the parties is contained in the said agreements. 2. The Respondent has opposed the present Application mainly on the ground that the rights sought to be enforced by the Applicants arise out of a subsequent agreement and not out of the agreements dated 25 November 1988. According to the Respondent, the only obligation cast upon him under the agreement dated 25 November 1988 was to pay an amount of Rs. 1 SHABNOOR AYUB PATHAN Digitally signed by SHABNOOR AYUB PATHAN Date: 2026.08.28 18:48:50 +0530 29-ARBAP-228-2026.doc 31 lakhs under the agreement dated 29 November 1988, which obligation has already been performed. It is, therefore, submitted that the rights which the Applicants are seeking to enforce arise out of the subsequent development agreement. It is further submitted that the Applicants are not parties to the said subsequent development agreement and that the Applicants have already filed a suit for enforcement of the rights arising out of the said subsequent agreement. 3. At this stage, this Court is required to consider the limited scope of jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Act. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Interplay between Arbitration Agreements under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the Stamp Act, 1899 (“Interplay”), the power of this Court at the stage of Section 11 is limited to examining the existence of an arbitration agreement. This Court is not required, at this stage, to examine the merits of the disputes or finally decide the rights and contentions of the parties. 4. In the present case, the existence of the arbitration agreement contained in the agreements dated 25 November 1988 is not in dispute. The objection raised by the Respondent essentially relates to the nature of the claims sought to be raised by the Applicants and whether such claims arise out of the subsequent development agreement or fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement contained in the agreements dated 25 November 1988. These issues can appropriately be considered by the learned Arbitrator in accordance with law. 2 29-ARBAP-228-2026.doc 5. In view of the above, this Court is satisfied that the disputes arising out of or in connection with the agreements dated 25 November 1988 are required to be referred to arbitration. 6. In view of the aforesaid, the present Application filed under Section 11 of the Act deserves to be disposed of by passing the following order: A) Accordingly, Mr. _Lizum. Wangdi, is hereby appointed as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes and differences between the parties arising out of or in connection with the respective agreements dated 25 November 1988; Office Address:- Office Address:- 205, 2nd Floor, Arcadia, NCPA Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021. Email – lizumw@gmail.com B) A copy of this Order will be communicated to the Learned Sole Arbitrator by the Advocates for the Applicant within a period of one week from today. The Applicant shall provide the contact and communication particulars of the parties to the Arbitral Tribunal along with a copy of this Order; C) The Learned Sole Arbitrator is requested to forward the statutory Statement of Disclosure under Section 11(8) read with Section 12(1) of the Act to the Advocates for the Applicant so as to enable them to file the same in the Registry of this Court. The Registry of this Court shall retain the said Statement on the file of 3 29-ARBAP-228-2026.doc this Applicant and a copy of the same shall be furnished by the Advocates for the Applicant to the Advocates for the Respondent; D) The Learned Sole Arbitrator is requested to forward the statutory Statement of Disclosure under Section 11(8) read with Section 12(1) of the Act to the parties within a period of two weeks from receipt of a copy of this Order; E) The parties shall appear before the Learned Sole Arbitrator on such date and at such place as indicated, to obtain appropriate directions with regard to conduct of the arbitration including fixing a schedule for pleadings, examination of witnesses, if any, schedule of hearings etc. At such meeting, the parties shall provide a valid and functional email address along with mobile and landline numbers of the respective Advocates of the parties to the Arbitral Tribunal. Communications to such email addresses shall constitute valid service of correspondence in connection with the arbitration; F) All arbitral costs and fees of the Arbitral Tribunal shall be borne by the parties equally in the first instance, and shall be subject to any final Award that may be passed by the Tribunal in relation to costs. 7. It is made clear that the disputes arising out of or in connection with the agreements dated 25 November 1988 shall be decided by the learned Arbitrator in accordance with law. The 4 29-ARBAP-228-2026.doc appointment of the learned Arbitrator shall not be construed as any finding by this Court on the rights claimed by the Applicants under any subsequent agreement or development agreement. 8. Since the agreement entered into with each Applicant is separate, the learned Arbitrator shall decide the disputes arising out of the respective agreement dated 25 November 1988 entered into with each Applicant separately and in accordance with law. 9. All issues on merits are expressly kept open to be raised and agitated before the learned Arbitral Tribunal. In particular, the contention of the Respondent that the claims of the Applicants arise out of the subsequent development agreement and are not covered by the arbitration agreement dated 25 November 1988 is kept open for consideration by the learned Arbitrator. 10. All actions required to be taken pursuant to this Order shall be taken upon receipt of a downloaded copy of this Order as available on the website of this Court. (AMIT BORKAR, J.) 5