Arbitration clause interpretation limits reference to disputes expressly covered; owner-co-developer dispute fell outside Clause 19.

Clause 19 of the addendum was construed as a whole, and its opening language did not itself create a general arbitration agreement. The clause's operative sub-provisions were limited to disputes specifically identified within the reference mechanism, including disputes between two or more owners in the same building. On a fair reading, that language did not extend to disputes between the owners and the co-developer, and no other sub-clause brought such disputes within arbitration. The owner's dispute with the co-developer was therefore not referable to arbitration under the clause, and the refusal to appoint an arbitrator was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether Clause 19 of the addendum covered disputes between the society acting as co-developer and the owners so as to require reference of the dispute to arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Analysis: The arbitration clause had to be read as a whole, and its opening part did not itself provide for arbitration. The operative part applied only to disputes arising among the parties, but the sub-clauses specifically identified the disputes covered by the reference mechanism. On a fair reading, the clause dealing with disputes between two or more owners in the same building did not extend to disputes between the owners and the co-developer. No other sub-clause brought such disputes within the arbitration mechanism.

Conclusion: The dispute between the owner and the co-developer was not covered by Clause 19 and was not referable to arbitration. The refusal to appoint an arbitrator was upheld, and the appeals failed.

---