The existence of ongoing disputes under a Joint Development Agreement validates the invocation of arbitration clauses despite assertions of limitation, confirming the agreement's subsistence.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

a. to appoint Justice Sri.Kukke Ramakrishna Bhat, a retired District and Sessions Judge, as a sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute arising out of the Joint Development Agreement dated 28-08-2013, as Document No.5581/2013-14, in the office of the Sub Registrar, Jayanayar [JP Nagar] Bengaluru, in the office of the Sub-registrar Jayanagar as per Clause No.15 of Joint Development Agreement (Annexure-A).

b. to pass such other suitable orders as necessary under the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice and equity.

2. A Joint Development Agreement dated 28.08.2013 was entered into between the petitioner and the respondents, which is governed by an arbitration clause in terms of Clause 15, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:

15. Arbitration:

In case any dispute or difference should arise between the parties hereto, the same shall be referred to arbitration consisting of a sole Arbitrator appointed by Second Party, who shall deal with the dispute under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, or any statutory modification thereof. The award of the Arbitrator or Arbitrators as the case may be, shall be final and binding on the parties.

3. The petitioner alleging that there are certain disputes, had got issued a legal notice on 23.12.2022 on the respondents. As there was no reply received, the petitioner had invoked the arbitration clause vide notice dated 12.12.2023. Another notice was issued on 5.04.2025 again invoking the arbitration clause reiterating the nomination of its arbitrator.

4. The respondents issued a notice on 22.04.2025 after receipt of the aforesaid notices contending that since the petitioner is willing to terminate the Joint Development Agreement, respondents are ready to fulfil the terms if certain payments were made by the petitioner. It is in that background that the petitioner has approached this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.

5. Notice having been issued, respondents have entered appearance.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since a reply had been issued on 22.04.2025 contending that the respondent is in possession of the property and that the respondent agreed to execute a cancellation of joint development agreement, the demand however made not being justified, no amounts are required to be paid by the petitioner, but the cancellation is required to be executed by the respondent. On that basis, he submits that there being disputes between the parties, the matter is required to be referred to arbitration.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that:

7.1. the dispute between the parties is ex facie barred by limitation. Firstly, he submits that in terms of the joint development agreement, the construction was to be completed within a period of 36 months from the date of issuance of the commencement certificate.

7.2. The commencement certificate had been issued on 10.05.2016, the construction was required to be completed by 09.05.2019. The dispute raised by the petitioner much thereafter is barred by limitation at the most the dispute ought to have been raised, within 3 years of 09.05.2019.

7.3. In this regard, he relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana at Chandirgarh in the case of M/s. Garg Construction Company vs. State of Haryana and others, ARB-122-2017 (O&M) dated 8.7.2022 more particularly Para 19, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:

In view of the aforesaid law laid down by the Supreme Court, it is evident that in the present case the dispute between