JUDGMENT :

Prayer: Arbitration Original Petition filed under Section 11(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 praying to appoint a sole arbitrator under Clause 29 of the bye-laws to adjudicate the dispute between the parties.

1. This petition is filed under Section 11(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to appoint a sole arbitrator under Clause 29 of the bye-laws to adjudicate the dispute between the parties.

2. Brief facts which gave rise to filing of the present Original Petition, are as follows:

(a) The petitioner is a real estate developer and had entered into a development of project with the respondents by putting up a residential apartment complex in Cheran Nagar, situated at Perumbakkam Village (earlier Tambaram Taluk, now Sholinganallur Taluk), Kancheepuram District. After obtaining all the necessary building permission, approval etc. from the State authorities, the housing complex was put up by the petitioner consisting of Blocks 1 to 4 with stilt plus 9 floors; Blocks 5 and 7 to 10 with EWS Blocks consisting of stilt plus 19 floors and Block 6 consisting of ground floor plus 19 floors and School block consisting of ground floor plus two floors. The total number of units as per the approved plan were 2482 units and out of which, 496 were developed in Phase-I in 2013 and Phase-2-A consisted of 1020 units of apartments, which was also completed in 2017. According to the petitioner/developer, it was owning 118 apartments out of 1516 apartments constructed so far, besides undivided share of the land of the entire property, which is yet to be developed.

(b) The respondents herein are the owners of the individual flats and they are the office bearers of the Apartment Owners Association called Embassy Residency Apartment Owners Association (ERAOA). According to the petitioner, the respondents, under the pretext of representing the Association’s interest, have been interfering with the possession, enjoyment and occupation of the petitioner in the property owned by them. Between the petitioner and the respondents’ Association, there was a dispute in regard to the settlement of Corpus Fund in favour of the Association. There was also dispute in regard to the enforcement of certain provisions of the Construction Agreement entered into between the parties. In essence, the case of the petitioner is that the respondents, claiming themselves as the office bearers of the apartment owners association, have transgressed into unsold lands owned by the petitioner and preventing the access to the petitioner to their own lands under their occupation relating to the unsold apartment units.

(c) As there was a dispute between the developer and the Association represented by the respondents, for finding a resolution to the dispute, the present O.P. has been filed, invoking an Arbitration Clause contained in the Memorandum of Association, Rules and bye-laws of the Association.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/developer drew the attention of this Court to the Bye-Laws in the Memorandum of Association of ERAOA, namely Bye-law No.29, which reads as under:

“29. Disputes:

In case any dispute or difference of opinion arises between members, the matter is reconciled by the Executive Committee. Where reconciliation is not possible, the matter shall be referred to arbitration under Indian Arbitration Act without recourse for legal remedies under civil courts.”

4. According to the petitioner, the developer should also be treated as a member of the Association and in this regard, he has referred to various Bye-laws of the Association, more particularly, Bye-Law Nos.8.3, 9.1 and 9.4, which are extracted hereunder:

“8.3: Wherever the word “Permanent Member” is used, it shall mean a person who is the owner of an Apartment/flat in EMBASSY RESIDENCY at the above-mentioned address and registered as member in the Association.

Wherever the word “Temporary Member” is used, it shall mean person other than the owner, who is in occ