thereto for development of the immovable property of the HUF situate at Premises No.9, Station Road, Liluah within the Bally Municipality (hereinafter referred to as “the Said Property”) upon the said HUF making out a marketable title in respect of the said premises. The petitioner claims to have paid a sum of Rs.50 Lakh to the said HUF and/or its Karta under Clause 11(a) of the said memorandum of understanding. The father of the respondents who had entered into the said development agreement as Karta of the HUF has died. It is the case of the petitioner that the said HUF has failed to make out a marketable title in respect of the said property and as such it is entitled to obtain refund of the said sum of Rs.50 Lakh from the respondents jointly and/or severally. According to the petitioner, the present respondents are bound by the terms of the said memorandum of understanding including the arbitration clause contained therein. By notice dated August 08, 2019 the petitioner invoked the arbitration agreement and requested the respondents’ to agree to the appointment of the arbitrator named therein. The respondent no.1 in his reply dated August 19, 2019 refused to accept the person named by the petitioners in the said letter dated August 8, 2019 as the sole Arbitrator. The said respondent further requested the petitioner to provide him with a copy of the said memorandum of understanding. The respondent no.2, however, did not reply to the said notice dated August 8, 2019.
