( 1 ) BY this application, filed under Sec 11 (5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the applicant, namely M/s Pampa Hotels limited, represented by its Managing Director, prays this Court to appoint an Arbitrator for resolution of the disputes, which have arisen out of an agreement dated 30-3-2002, entered into between the applicant and the respondent

( 2 ) IN response to the Notification dated 2-12-2000, issued by the respondent, namely m/s Andhra Pradesh Tourism Development corporation Limited (APTDC), inviting bids for development and management of a Three star Hotel at Alipin, Tirupathi, Chittoor District, m/s Sudalagunta Hotels Limited, which submitted its bid, was found to be the highest bidder M/s Sudalagunta Hotels Limited, for the purpose of implementation of the said project, it is averred, has promoted and got incorporated the applicant as a company under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 Pursuant to its incorporation, the applicant states that the respondent entered into a Development and Management agreement as well as Lease Agreement with it on 30-3-2002 According to the applicant, the Lease Agreement is for a period of 33 years, and is provided with a renewal clause

( 3 ) IN terms of the Development and management Agreement and the Lease agreement, the applicant states that he deposited an amount of Rs 8,85,600/- towards advance lease amount for 12 months and Rs 5,00,000/- towards Security Deposit and Rs 4,00,000/- towards Project development Charges Though as per article 4 2 of the Development and management Agreement, the applicant shall commence the project on or before the scheduled date of commencement, but not later than 60 days from the date of signing the said agreement, the applicant states that the work could not be commenced as the respondent had delayed the handing over the site by four months, and in fact, had handed over the site only on 4-8-2002.

( 4 ) AFTER the handing over of the site by the respondent, the applicant states that he mobilized men and machinery and commenced the work by demolishing the guest House Building which existed therein and removed the debris and dug four borewells and obtained electric and telephone connection and even constructed store rooms and watchmen quarters. While the work was in progress, the applicant states that one smt. Rani Naidu, filed a suit in O. S. No. 1298 of 2002 on the file of the Additional Junior civil Judge, Tirupati, seeking permanent injunction against the applicant and obtained an order of temporary injunction in I. A. No. 1804 of 2002, dated 4-12-2002 in respect of 6m x 6m of land in Sy. No. 48/3, Alipiri road. As orders of temporary injunction were granted only in respect of some portion of the land, the applicant states that he decided to proceed with the construction, and at that point of time, Smt. Rani Naidu filed an application in I. A. No. 326 of 2003 seeking his detention. The applicant states that when he brought all these facts to the notice of the respondent vide his letter dated 21-12-2002, the respondent filed application in I. A. No. 346 of 2003 to implead them as party-defendant, and another application in I. A. No. 27 of 2003, to advance the hearing of the implead application, which initially was allowed, and later was dismissed as not pressed at the instance of the respondents.

( 5 ) THE applicant states that Articles 11. 1, 11. 2. 2 and 11. 3. 1 of the Development and management Agreement and Clauses 15, 15 (b) (ii) and 15 (d) (v) of the Lease Agreement contain Force Majeureand non-political Force majeure clauses, which inter alia provide for suspension of the obligations/responsibilities to be performed by both the parties and also provide for non-payment of ground rent of the site during the currency of the said clauses. Though the order of temporary injunction, granted by the Additional Junior Civil Judge, tirupati, was in existence, and by reason of non-political Force Majeure clause, the agreements stood s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document