Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – ss. 11(6), 11(12)(a) & 16 – Appointment of Arbitrator – Karnataka Stamp Act – Stamp Duty on Arbitration Agreement – Respondent, an Indian Company engaged in hospitality sector, entered into a Hotel Management Agreement (HMA) with Petitioners – HMA mandated that for the renovation undertaken by the petitioners, respondent was contractually bound to pay the fee to the petitioner as incentive fees – As per the petitioner, respondent failed to pay the requisite fee – Respondent via mail on 12.10.2018 terminated the HMA stating that the Hotel was rebranded – Petitioner invoked the arbitration clause provided under HMA – Aggrieved by the respondent’s denial to appoint a suitable arbitrator, the petitioner have filed petition for appointment of sole arbitrator – Respondent contended that the Arbitration Agreement was an unstamped document and the petitioners have not paid stamp duty under the Karnataka Stamp Act – Held: Usually, issues of arbitrability/validity are matters to be adjudicated upon by arbitrators – This Court, until the larger Bench decides on the interplay between Sections 11(6) and 16, should ensure that arbitrations are carried on, unless the issue before the Court patently indicates existence of deadwood – The issues whether the respondent is estopped from raising the contention of unenforceability of the HMA or the issue whether the HMA is insufficiently or incorrectly stamped, can be finally decided at a later stage – The petitioners, have themselves attempted to self-adjudicate the required stamp duty and have paid, a stamp duty of Rs 2,200/-, describing the HMA as a “bond” and further purchased 11 e-stamps for Rs. 200/- each, describing the HMA as an ‘agreement’ under article 5(j) – From the above it is clear, that stamp duty has been paid, whether it be insufficient or appropriate is a question that maybe answered at a later stage.