IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BENCH
Subodh Abhyankar, J.
Fortune Builders – Appellant
Versus
Hansraj Kamdar and Ors. – Respondents
Arbitration Appeal No. 50 of 2019
Decided On : 05-01-2021
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Appeal - Section 37 - Rejection of application under Section 9 - [REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT] - [Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996] - The court discussed the provisions of the Joint Venture Development Agreement, including clauses related to project timeline, permissions, and penalties. The court also referred to the judgment in the case of Firm Ashok Traders v. Gurumukh Das Saluja to emphasize the requirement of promptly initiating arbitration proceedings when seeking interim relief.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a partnership firm, entered into a Joint Venture Development Agreement with the respondents for real estate development. Dispute arose when the respondents refused to sign necessary maps, leading to the appellant's application under Section 9 of the Act, 1996 for interim protection.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant failed to promptly initiate arbitration proceedings after the dispute arose, leading to a delay of over 2½ years in seeking interim protection. The court also held that the appellant did not prove lack of cooperation from the respondents.
Issues: Delay in initiating arbitration proceedings, lack of cooperation from respondents
Ratio Decidendi: Prompt initiation of arbitration proceedings is essential when seeking interim relief under Section 9 of the Act, 1996. Failure to do so may result in denial of interim measures.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the lower court's order, and no costs were awarded.
JUDGMENT :
Subodh Abhyankar, J.
1. This appeal has been preferred under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short "Act, 1996") by the appellants assailing the order dated 23.4.2019 passed in MJC No. 40/2018 by the Second Additional District Judge, Bhopal, whereby the application filed under Section 9 of the Act, 1996 by the appellant has been rejected.
2. Shorn of details, in brief the facts of the case are that the appellant/firm is a registered partnership firm engaged in the business of real estate investment, development and its sale. The appellant/firm is also a registered colonizer with the Municipal Corporation, Bhopal. Pursuant to its business, the appellant/firm entered into a Joint Venture Development Agreement with the respondents on 21.2.2014, the same was registered on 13.3.2014 with respect to the joint development of the property bearing Khasra No. 147/9/1/6 admeasuring 0.36 acres, and Khasra No. 147/9/1/4 admeasuring 0.72 acres at Village Bawariya Kalan, Tahsil Huzur District Bhopal. Under this Joint Venture Agreement the appellant was to develop the property on the land of the respondents, the land owner. The development included the multi-storied apartments/fats on the land in question, the sale consideration of which after completion was to be shared in the agreed proportion between the appellant firm and the respondents as per the various clauses of the Joint Venture Agreement. Clause 3 of the said agreement provided that the subject property was to be developed within a period of 36 months. Clause 8 provided that procuring the necessary permissions and making expenditure with respect thereof shall be the solitary responsibility of the second party i.e. the appellant/Fortune Builders who was also to procure all the necessary permissions and accordingly start the development work. Clause 13 provided the division of the constructed property in the ratio of 43:57 and Clause 20 provided that wherever the signature and endorsement of the first party (i.e. the land owner Mr. Kamdar) are required, the same shall be provided immediately by the land owner and vide Clause 25 and 27, it was agreed that if the area is not developed within 36 months, then a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- per fat, per month shall be payable by the appellant firm. Thus, the case of the appellant/firm is that the time was not the essence of the contract, as the same was extendable on payment of penalty by the second party to the first party.
3. It is further the case of the appellant firm is that the parties also agreed that the appellant shall pay a sum of Rs. 50 lakhs to the respondents and thus two cheques of Rs. 25 lakhs each dated 19.11.2013 were given by the appellant to the respondents. The appellant's further case is that as per the Joint Venture Agreement it was agreed that the respondents shall extend the entire assistance and shall sign on all the documents, wherever required towards procuring any permission from any authority for effecting the development over the subject land and thus as a precondition for carrying out any development on the land, it was necessary for the appellants to have procured the building permission/sanctioned from the Bhopal Municipal Corporation, which could have been sanctioned only after production of maps as signed by the land owner with the plan of the whole building.
4. It is further case of the appellant/firm that on two different occasions, the employee of the appellant/firm namely Radheshyam Malviya contacted and approached the respondents for signing of the duly prepared building maps, which were prepared by their architect, but the respondent/land owner avoided endorsing the aforesaid building plan map and for this reason despite being ready and willing to execute the project, the starting point of the whole project namely sanctioning of building permission map could not be achieved, hence for this reason the development work on the said project could not start on the subject di
AI
Prompt initiation of arbitration proceedings is crucial when seeking interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle of minimal judicial intervention in the arbitral process, emphasizing the competence of the arbitrator to decide all preliminary issu....
Point of law: When a suit or proceeding is not thrown out in limine but the Court receives it for consideration and disposal according to law, it must be regarded as entertaining the suit or proceedi....
The referral court's scope under Section 11(6-A) is limited to the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement. A formal notice under Section 21 is not mandatory if the respondent has prior kno....
Interim injunction – Jurisdiction under Section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is not an adjudicatory substitute for final determination of rights, but a supportive mechanism to facilit....
The arbitration agreement binds all parties, including non-signatories, and disputes must be referred to arbitration despite objections on limitation and jurisdiction.
The court upheld the specific performance of the Joint Venture Agreement and granted interim measures under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to prevent the appellant from disrupting....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.