As per case facts, the Petitioner (developer) and Respondent No.1 (a society, represented by Respondent No.2 as its President) entered into a Joint Venture Agreement for property development. Disputes arose ... when the Respondents allegedly failed to honor their obligations. A previous suit filed by a newly formed committee of Respondent No.1, challenging the agreement's validity due to alleged fraud by Respondent No.2, was dismissed for non-prosecution. The Petitioner then applied for the appointment of an arbitrator. The question arose whether the dispute was commercial in nature, if the agreement was valid given the contested authority of Respondent No.2, and whether a non-signatory (Respondent No.1) could be bound by the arbitration clause. Finally, the High Court held that the dispute was commercial, especially from the developer's perspective, and that issues regarding the agreement's validity, signatory authority, and joinder of non-signatories fall within the arbitral tribunal's domain under the doctrine of competence-competence. Therefore, an arbitrator was appointed.